Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — WALES

Small Industries

Mr. Geraint Howells: asked the Secretary of State for Wales if he has any further plans to help small industries in Wales.

Mr. Cledwyn Hughes: asked the Secretary of State for Wales what arrangements have been made to implement his announcement that a better advisory service for small firms in North Wales is to be set up; and if he will make a statement.

The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. John Morris): I am glad to say that arrangements have been made for an official of the Small Firms Information Service in Cardiff to attend my Department's office at Colwyn Bay on the first

and third Monday of each month from 18th July onwards. He will be available to deal by telephone or by personal interview with inquiries from small firms or those wishing to enter business for the first time. Both the Welsh Development Agency and the Development Board for Rural Wales are paying special attention in their plans to the needs of small industries, and I shall continue to keep all the arrangements for providing the best possible service to small industries under close review.

Mr. Howells: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for his encouraging reply. Does he not agree that it is very difficult to find tenants for the many advance factories in Wales? In these circumstances. will he consider giving some of these advance factories to service industries? What further plans are there to help the small employers who employ between three and 10 people, who are the backbone of the rural community?

Mr. Morris: On the first point, when I met the Chairman of the Development Board for Rural Wales he made it clear that it was the Board's top priority to seek new tenants for empty advance factories. The Board has had a measure of success already. The question of extending the availability of the factories for service industries would need to be looked at. As regards general help to small businesses, about one-third of all applications for selective financial assistance approved in the last two years have been


from small firms employing fewer than 50 people. The Welsh Development Agency has set up a small business unit which has made an encouraging start.

Mr. Hughes: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that his helpful reply will be appreciated by the smaller industrialists in North Wales? Can he give an assurance that, if there is a clear demand for the kind of service which will now become available, he will be prepared to extend the service? Secondly, will he take steps to ensure that the availability of the new service is made known through the local Press, so that all industries in the area will know that the service exists?

Mr. Morris: On the last point, Press notices have been issued today and letters are being sent to known small firms and the chambers of commerce. I have visited the Small Business Centre at Cardiff, as I said in the Welsh Grand Committee, and have invited hon. Members on both sides of the House to visit the centre to see what is happening there. If they have views on this subject, I shall be glad to hear them. Certainly, if the scheme works and is seen to be of help, I should be the first to want to extend it.

Mr. Wigley: In welcoming his announcement, may I ask the Secretary of State whether the Welsh Development Agency will be extending in bricks and mortar this change in policy? In Gwynedd a survey showed that 64 small firms needed new premises, and 62 of these firms wanted factories of between 2,000 sq. ft. and 2,500 sq. ft. Subsequent to that survey, the WDA has announced one factory of 10,000 sq. ft. and two of 5,000 sq. ft. for Gwynedd. Will the Secretary of State press upon the WDA the need for further small factory units?

Mr. Morris: The hon. Gentleman has missed the last announcement of the Welsh Development Agency in April this year, when 61 factories were announced for the whole of Wales. They included 51 factories of 5,000 sq. ft. or less. About 15 or 20 jobs would be provided in a factory of that size. The whole emphasis in the last announcement was to cater for small firms. If these factories were taken up, I would give every encouragement to the WDA to build more factories.

Mr. Wyn Roberts: While I welcome the statement as far as it goes, may I ask the Secretary of State to consider relaxing the rule that expansionary work cannot begin until grants have been fully approved? As the right hon. and learned Gentleman may know, there are two firms in my constituency which have been caught out by the timing rule.

Mr. Morris: I do not want to deal with any particular case this afternoon. If the hon. Gentleman is talking about one factory that I have in mind, he will know the history of the matter. It was made clear that, as is laid down in the regulations, firms must apply before work starts. It is a cardinal principle of the grants system, and it has been applied for many years, that approval should be given before the work starts. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will contact me if I am wrong. That was the difficulty in that case.

Welsh Language

Mr. van Straubenzee: asked the Secretary of State for Wales what plans he has for the increased use of the Welsh language in post-school institutions in Wales.

Mr. John Morris: The Government's policy is to encourage a greater use of the Welsh language whenever practicable. This applies as much in post-school institutions as in other fields.

Mr. van Straubenzee: In applying the test of practicability, will the Secretary of State bear in mind that, however beautiful a culture is represented by the language, to extend it compulsorily to the post-school world would be a very grave error? Will he also bear in mind that the compulsory learning of this language at school age is already creating in Wales some of the most educationally deprived children in Europe?

Hon. Members: Rubbish.

Mr. Morris: I always thought that the hon. Gentleman knew something about education. I do not know on what basis he advances the statement made in the last part of his supplementary question. To my knowledge it is not supported by evidence in any shape or form. Perhaps


he will let me know in due course the basis for it.
I welcome the hon. Gentleman's interest in the question of Welsh education, but may I tell him that the curriculum is a matter for the local education authorities and that they are democratically elected, which the hon. Gentleman is not, for any part of Wales.

Mr. Gwynfor Evans: Is the Secretary of State aware that if the Government implemented their long-standing undertaking to establish the fourth television channel as a national channel in Wales it would be natural to develop on that channel a Welsh language university of the air? Will he hasten that day?

Mr. Morris: I do not wish to comment at this stage on the last part of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question, but the Government's commitment to the fourth channel is well known. It is simply a question of finding funds before one can proceed with it.

Industrial Development

Mr. Hooson: asked the Secretary of State for Wales what plans he has for directing a higher proportion of public expenditure in Wales towards productive industry so as to help create more worthwhile job opportunities.

Mr. John Morris: There is no restriction on the money available for assistance to industrial development under Section 7 of the Industry Act for which I am responsible. Officials of my Department are launching a campaign to draw the attention of industry to the full range of incentives available.

Mr. Hooson: Does the Secretary of State agree that one of the basic faults of the British economy and of the Welsh economy is that too high a percentage of public expenditure has been directed to the non-productive sector, in particular in the reform of local government and the reform of the National Health Service, which has deprived the productive sector of expenditure which it otherwise might have had?

Mr. Morris: I have no responsibility for the actions of the last Conservative Administration which decided to reorganise local government and the Health Service in the way they did, which has been

substantially disapproved—I put it as mildly as I can—from one end of Wales to the other. We are ensuring that resources are made available for industrial development in publicly-owned industry and privately-owned industry. That has been the emphasis of the Government.

Mr. Roy Hughes: Does my right hon. and learned Friend appreciate that the June jobless figure for Gwent showed an increase of 892? That is a significant rise against the national trend, even before school leavers come on to the labour market. Does it not reveal once again the injustice of not including Newport in the development area, which deprives the people of Gwent of so many job opportunities?

Mr. Morris: I share my hon. Friend's concern about the unemployment figures. The question of development area status for Newport, for which my hon. Friend has been an assiduous campaigner, is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry.

Mr. Nicholas Edwards: Is not the real economic mistake to take too much away from productive industry in the way of resources?

Mr. Morris: If the hon. Gentleman would spell out how he would seek to cut back on public expenditure, of which I understand he is an advocate, perhaps I could deal with that question more fully. However, he seeks to get the best of both worlds. He seeks a massive cut in public expenditure, which would lead to much more unemployment right across Wales.

Mr. Nicholas Edwards: I know that the right hon. and learned Gentleman told readers of the Western Mail on Friday that it would be tedious to catalogue the reasons for our economic failure, but would it not be sensible for him to try to analyse them and explain why high tax policies have brought economic and social disaster in Wales, added 42,000 to the list of Welsh unemployment and destroyed the job prospects of 12,000 or 13,000 young people?

Mr. Morris: If the hon. Gentleman had read the whole of the article, he would have seen that I made it clear that there has been a failure to compete with other Western European countries and


with the rest of the world in growth since the end of the war. If the hon. Gentleman divorces the Welsh economy from what has been happening in the rest of Europe, he has failed to understand it. We have taken major decisions for substantial public investment—in the steel industry at Port Talbot, at Shotton and at Ebbw Vale, and in the coal industry —and we have given every possible help to private industry. Hence the Hoover decision at Merthyr and the decisions taken on many other places.

Housing Finance

Mr. Wyn Roberts: asked the Secretary of State for Wales what was the extent of underspending on housing in Wales in 1976–77, comparing the actual amount spent with the amount available.

The Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Alec Jones): There has been an underspending on housing in Wales in 1976–77 of some £25 million, but accurate figures are not yet available.

Mr. Roberts: I am sure the hon. Gentleman will agree that that is a staggering figure. Is it not about 25 per cent. of the total? Has the Minister's working party, consisting of members of the Council for the Principality and Welsh Office officials, come up with an explanation of the 25 per cent. underspend, which must be regarded as scandalous in view of the housing need in Wales and the high level of unemployment in the construction industry? What steps does it recommend the Minister to take to prevent similar underspend this year?

Mr. Alec Jones: Despite the efforts of my right hon. and learned Friend to secure additional public finance for housing in Wales, he and I were both deeply disturbed when we found that there was some indication that there would be an underspend of the size I have mentioned. For that reason, we thought that, rather than draw somewhat hasty, almost politically motivated, conclusions, we would establish the working party. We are awaiting its report, which we hope to receive very shortly, so that we can devise policies and ensure that this underspend does not occur again. We are all aware of the need for spending on housing in Wales.

Mr. Hooson: Has not the hon. Gentleman come to a tentative conclusion on

the reasons for the underspend? If the housing need is what we think it is—and that is what has to be established—why have not the local authorities spent the money? Is it a question of high interest rates, or what?

Mr. Alec Jones: If we knew the reasons, we would not have set up the working party. The reasons put forward by local authorities throughout Wales vary considerably. As I have mentioned in the House before, some authorities suggested that the reason was the heavy rain in October. But, as I said, I thought that the rain fell generously throughout Wales. We are trying to find out whether there are faults in the machinery of monitoring. All the possibilities are being examined to ensure that we find the true reason so that we do not have another underspend.

Mr. Anderson: Will my hon. Friend confirm that some districts in Wales responded with alacrity to the new funds available and spent all their funds, while others manifestly fell far short of that? When the final figures are available, will he show the underspend district by district so that we may see which authorities are the major defaulters?

Mr. Alec Jones: Yes. When the working party has reported, we will publish its report and indicate the areas in which the underspend has occurred.

Mr. D. E. Thomas: When studying the report of the working party, will the hon. Gentleman consider the work of his Housing Division and see in what way its work and particularly the stop-go directives to local authorities on spending on housing have affected the take-up of the allocations?

Mr. Alec Jones: I made it clear to the working party—and this was agreed—that we would not leave anything out from the inquiry. If there are faults in the machinery of the Welsh Office, they will be part of the inquiry. We want the fullest possible inquiry to take place and we shall make its results public.

Industry Act Assistance

Mr. Wigley: asked the Secretary of State for Wales what expenditure was authorised by him in the first year of his responsibility for those sections of the Industry Act 1972 that were transferred


to the Welsh Office; and how this expenditure compares with that under the same headings in Wales during the previous three years.

Mr. John Morris: On 1st July 1975 I assumed responsibility for assistance under Section 7 of the Industry Act 1972 for undertakings in Wales. In the financial year 1975–76, offers of assistance under this section to projects in Wales totalled £16·3 million. In the financial years to March 1975, 1974 and 1973, the corresponding figures were £11·2 million, £13·5 million and £1.5 million respectively.

Mr. Wigley: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for that answer and for the progress that has been made in increasing investment under that section. In view of that, will he put pressure on the Prime Minister to transfer also Section 8 powers to the Welsh Office, since in Wales only £3 million was spent under Section 8 last year compared with £150 million throughout the whole of Britain?

Mr. Morris: What has been spent under Section 8 depends on the nature of the industries. I am quite content to have the powers under Section 7. They are the ones that I need. I am confident that where we have a good case there is no difficulty whatever in getting more money for Wales under Section 8. The important thing is getting suitable projects.

Land Authority for Wales

Mr. Roy Hughes: asked the Secretary of State for Wales if he has had any recent consultations with the Chairman of the Land Authority for Wales concerning staff appointments.

Mr. Gould: asked the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on appointments to the Welsh Land Authority.

Mr. Alec Jones: My right hon. and learned Friend has no general responsibility for the appointment of staff to the Land Authority for Wales. The only appointment to this Authority which needs my right hon and learned Friend's specific approval is that of the chief executive.

Mr. Hughes: Does not my hon. Friend agree that, if the information revealed about the appointment of Mr. Johnson as legal officer for the Land Authority is correct, it reveals the most blatant misuse of public funds that it is possible to imagine? Does not my hon. Friend feel that there is a necessity for a full investigation into this matter, particularly into the nature of the illness from which Mr. Johnson allegedly suffered? Finally, does not my hon. Friend agree that it is now time that the Government set about rectifying the extravagant reorganisation of local government carried out in Wales by the last Government?

Mr. Alec Jones: I am certainly aware that the reorganisation of local government as carried out by the last Government has not met with unanimous approval throughout Wales, nor is it yet functioning properly and efficiently. With regard to the specific case mentioned by my hon. Friend, I must say that the circumstances of the termination of any former employment of Land Authority for Wales officers is principally a matter for the person concerned and his former employers. My right hon. and learned Friend has no powers whatever in this matter. The Land Authority, like many other public sector bodies, requires potential employees to provide a medical certificate, and that practice was followed in this case.

Mr. Gould: Does service with the Land Authority for Wales count as local government employment? If so, is it permissible for one person to draw a pension from one local government employment and a salary from another? Will my hon. Friend use his influence to persuade the public authorities concerned to make a clear public statement about the circumstances under which Mr. Johnson left his former employment?

Mr. Alec Jones: The circumstances under which Mr. Johnson left his previous employment must be a matter for Mr. Johnson and that authority. My right hon. and learned Friend has certainly no responsibilities in that matter. He has, however, made it clear that we shall not sanction any arrangements which avoid the need for a reassessment of the earlier award if that would otherwise be required under the prescribed arrangements.

Mr. Hooson: Is not the Minister aware that this matter is causing grave public concern? Although the Welsh Office has no direct responsibility, does not the Minister agree that there is a need for a public statement on this matter? Is it right that this officer has a full pension, has obtained a golden handshake of five figures from one authority and is now appointed to another public authority on the basis that he is fully fit?

Mr. Alec Jones: The hon. and learned Gentleman is asking me to make a statement to the House concerning the conditions relating to a former employee of a local authority in England. I must say to the hon. and learned Gentleman that I do not believe that this is properly a matter for me.

Sir Raymond Gower: What information has the Land Authority obtained from this gentleman about his contributions record for the basis of superannuation? Has he been granted terms for new superannuation or pension for which he will qualify in due course, thus ensuring himself in future a very large second pension?

Mr. Alec Jones: As I said previously, and as my right hon. and learned Friend has already said, if there were any question of the need for reassessment of the earlier award we would certainly not countenance anything to prevent its taking place.

South Glamorgan Health Authority

Mr. Grist: asked the Secretary of State for Wales when he next plans to meet the Chairman of the South Glamorgan Health Authority.

The Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Barry Jones): My right hon. and learned Friend hopes to meet the chairman with other area health authority chairmen on 22nd July. I myself met the chairman on 6th July.

Mr. Grist: When the Secretary of State meets the chairman, will he bear in mind the enormous public concern which has been aroused over the proposed closure of the Glan Ely and Rhydlafer hospitals, particularly in the light of the scandalous waiting lists for orthopaedic treatment and the growing demand for geriatric services in South Glamorgan?

Mr. Barry Jones: I visited the Glan Ely Hospital last week. I also visited Lansdowne and St. David's and talked in some detail with the chairman about the problems which ought to be looked at and solved. I would say to the House that we are, however, willing to extend by a further month—until 22nd August—the normal one-month period for direct appeals and representations to the Secretary of State. With regard to Rhydlafer, I discussed this issue with the chairman, but we have received no proposals as yet.

Mr. Ioan Evans: Is my hon. Friend aware that there is deep concern in Wales about the reorganisation of the Health Service and the tendency to concentrate hospitals into larger units? There is also concern about the closure of Rhydlafer Hospital which goes beyond South Glamorgan into Mid-Glamorgan. There is also concern about the closure of the haematology department. Will my hon. Friend assure patients in the area that these services will be retained?

Mr. Barry Jones: There is no cause for alarm with regard to Rhydlafer. The study which the authority is making is without prejudice. With regard to the general principle of having large or small hospitals, I would say that beyond any shadow of doubt the Department knows how much loved the smaller hospitals in Wales are. At the same time, however, if 10 years ago a great hospital was planned, conceivably there would have to be consequential closures. However, there is full procedure of consultation and the Welsh Office will never override that.

Sir Raymond Gower: asked the Secretary of State for Wales if he has had any recent consultations with the Chairman and members of the South Glamorgan Health Authority regarding their proposals affecting various hospitals in their area.

Mr. Barry Jones: I discussed them with the chairman in the course of visits to Landsdowne, Glan Ely and St. David's Hospitals last week.

Sir R. Gower: While appreciating that the Chairman and members of the South Glamorgan Health Authority have a formidable and difficult task, may I point out that there is deep and wide concern about the number of proposals


affecting so many of the hospitals, including the one in my constituency—the Prince of Wales—and Glan Ely? There is also uncertainty about the future of Barry, Sully and Lansdowne Hospitals. Does the Minister realise that it is vitally important that his Department should enter into close consultations with the authority to ensure that no hasty decision is taken? In the case of the Prince of Wales Hospital, will the hon. Gentleman bear in mind that we should not like to see the purpose-built unit divided into two, as has been proposed?

Mr. Barry Jones: No decision will be lightly taken. I am fully conscious of the anxiety of the hon. Gentleman in regard to his constituency. We have examined the subject of cover for minor casualties, but at the same time we as a Department have no Draconian powers and we cannot insist on local GPs helping to give that cover.

Mr. Nicholas Edwards: Is the Minister aware of the grave concern in the medical profession and among leukaemia patients in Wales about the treatment of that illness and the policy followed by the Welsh Office, apparently without adequate consultation? Will he take this opportunity to say that he will be ready to hold the meeting which we have requested with him so that we may discuss this matter?

Mr. Barry Jones: If the hon. Gentleman wants a meeting, it will take place as soon as convenient to both of us and our colleagues.

Rhyl (Area Status)

Sir A. Meyer: asked the Secretary of State for Wales whether he has received any further representations from the Rhuddlan Borough Council on the consequences for Rhyl and district of exclusion from the Welsh Development Area.

Mr. John Morris: No, Sir, not directly, but Clwyd County Council has made representations in respect of that part of the county outside the development area.

Sir A. Meyer: Is the Secretary of State aware of the growing feeling of despair in Rhyl at prospects for the coming winter and at his apparent intention to wash his hands of the future of the area? However, will he take this opportunity

to do something helpful and persuade his colleagues at the Department of Employment to tell the industrial tribunal to get on with the hearings of the industrial dispute which is holding up construction of the Sun Centre at Rhyl?

Mr. Morris: That is not a matter for me, but I am consulting my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment. As for any question of my washing my hands of the affairs of Rhyl, I do not think that that statement can be substantiated by evidence. I am deeply concerned about unemployment wherever it exists. The Government have taken measures—for example, job creation schemes and temporary employment and youth employment subsidies—which have either saved or created about 500 jobs in Rhyl.
May I seek the help of the hon. Member for Flint, West (Sir A. Meyer) in regard to a matter to which I referred on 23rd May? I then instanced the lack of communication between the Rhuddlan Borough Council and my Department in reply to a letter which we sent in December on the subject of the leisure centre and promenade project. I said in May that we were still awaiting a reply. That is an indication of my concern. We are still in the same position, and perhaps the hon. Gentleman can help me.

Oil Refineries (Dyfed)

Mr. Gwynfor Evans: asked the Secretary of State for Wales how many persons are employed in Dyfed by oil refineries.

Mr. John Morris: The latest figure available is for the last quarter of 1976, when 1,195 people were employed in the four refineries and their associated petrochemical plants in Dyfed.

Mr. Evans: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman confirm that the firms to which he referred, which employ most of the people in the oil industry, have received tens of millions of pounds in regional grants, although there are other firms which have come to the magnificent deep harbour at Milford Haven and have not received a penny? Is he aware that companies such as Gulf Oil, an American concern, have assets amounting to £18,000 million and that others are in the same league? Is this the best way to use


our regional grants? Cannot we use them in a better way to create more employment to Wales?

Mr. Morris: I am concerned to follow up any new method of deploying public funds. The hon. Gentleman may know that the greater part of the money invested in Milford was paid under the old system of investment grants. He must not look down his nose at what has been achieved, because the refineries represent 50 per cent. of all manufacturing jobs in Pembroke Dock and Milford Haven. That is a significant contribution. It may be that in future there will be downstream developments dependent on the existence of those refineries.

Mr. Nicholas Edwards: I have some sympathy with what the hon. Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Evans) said, but does the Secretary of State agree that probably between 3,000 and 4,000 people are receiving employment directly or indirectly as a result of the operations of oil companies in the area? Will he say specifically whether public funds on this scale will be available for the new cracker project which is currenty being discussed by two of the oil refineries?

Mr. Morris: I am aware informally of the existence of this project. The types of grant available for such projects will be for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry and myself, and we shall have to consider the matter when it arises. At present the matter is hypothetical, and I may have the planning responsibilities in this case. I would not wish to comment further.

Transport Policy

Mr. Anderson: asked the Secretary of State for Wales whether, in the light of Chapter 11 of the June White Paper, he will publish at three yearly intervals a White Paper on transport policy in Wales.

Mr. Barry Jones: There will be an annual White Paper for Wales on roads. The three-yearly White Papers proposed in paragraph 287 of the White Paper, Cmnd. 6836, will deal with transport policy for the whole of Great Britain. Any separate issues arising in Wales will be clearly identified and fully discussed.

Mr. Anderson: Will there not be a separate three-yearly White Paper on transport policy for Scotland? Would it not be useful to have a Welsh White Paper so that we may have a regular overview of transport policy in Wales apart from the sections which may be intermingled with other parts of the United Kingdom?

Mr. Barry Jones: There will be a separate annual White Paper on roads, for which my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Wales has responsibility. As for the main thrust of my hon. Friend's observations, I must inform him that the three-yearly White Paper will be very wide-ranging and will deal with matters in Wales as in England. Some of the subjects will relate to British Rail and drivers' hours, for example. I would have thought that there was a strong case for not having a separate three-yearly White Paper for Wales.

Sir A. Meyer: How does the Welsh Office view attempts by British Rail to attract freight back to rail from road transport?

Mr. Barry Jones: I should perhaps have had previous notice of that question, but in general terms we have approved two projects of this kind.

Mr. Wigley: Is not the Minister aware that there is concern in Wales over the transfer of responsibility for the financing of railways to local authorities, which are already hard pressed in their provision for roads? Is there not a case for a three-yearly Government review of the rail situation in Wales?

Mr. Barry Jones: The Welsh Office is always reviewing the rail situation in Wales. I would inform the hon. Gentleman that the White Paper has many green pages.

Education Standards

Mr. Michael Roberts: asked the Secretary of State for Wales what representations he has received recently about educational standards in Welsh primary and secondary schools.

Mr. Barry Jones: In the course of the present national debate on education.


many individuals and bodies have made known to us their views on standards. Full account will be taken of these in the forthcoming consultative document.

Mr. Michael Roberts: Does the Minister agree that examinations, when properly set, can play a part in the maintenance of standards? Is he aware of Press criticisms of the recent CSE English paper, which is probably more suited to be a trade test for prison service than an English examination for schools? Is he satisfied that the WJEC is making the maximum contribution to the maintenance of standards in our schools?

Mr. Barry Jones: We have no responsibility for the WJEC, which has a fine reputation. As for the specific examination paper to which the hon. Gentleman referred, I have seen it and it is not the sort of paper I should like a child of mine to sit. To put it mildly, it caused me great astonishment and I would rather that the paper had not been set.

Mr. Wyn Roberts: Within the structure of the WJEC, is not the setting of this type of paper the responsibility of the teachers' panel? Can the Minister say who could look into the setting of this particular examination paper, of which I am delighted to hear he so strongly disapproves?

Mr. Barry Jones: The hon. Gentleman might wish to ask the WJEC about how the paper got out. I would reassure him that I take the same view as he does. It was a macabre theme and in the widest sense quite tasteless.

Welsh Development Agency

Mr. Ioan Evans: asked the Secretary of State for Wales what further proposals he has to commit additional funds to the Welsh Development Agency; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. John Morris: My hon. Friend will recall that as recently as last December additional resources were allocated to the Welsh Development Agency, amounting to £2·5 million in each of the years 1977–78 and 1978–79. There are no plans to allocate further additional funds to the Agency, whose resources in the current year exceed £34 million, but its budget will be kept under review.

Mr. Evans: In view of the improvement in the economy and the Government's desire to get investment into manufacturing industries, will the Secretary of State consider exerting pressure to give additional resources to the National Enterprise Board and the Welsh Development Agency to ensure that this investment is brought forward?

Mr. Morris: I know of my hon. Friend's anxiety about the WDA. I can assure him that potential constraints are not at present a limiting factor in the Agency's performance in industrial investment. It has recently announced a land clearance programme of £15 million over three years. That is the largest programme of that sort ever undertaken, it being almost double the previous one which was announced in 1974 of £8 million. Its advance factory programme is about £4 million, which is again larger than the one it announced previously.

Oral Answers to Questions — CIVIL SERVICE

Select Committee Reports (Printing)

Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg: asked the Minister for the Civil Service what steps he is taking to speed up the printing of Select Committee reports.

The Minister of State, Civil Service Department (Mr. Charles R. Morris): These reports are produced by the St. Stephen's Parliamentary Press and by commercial contractors. The arrangements are kept under continuous review by Her Majesty's Stationery Office.

Mr. Finsberg: Is the Minister aware that the Fifth and Sixth Reports of the Select Committee on Expenditure are not estimated to be published for up to 10 weeks after they were laid on the Table, and that his noble Friend in another place said at column 877 of the Official Report of 23rd June 1977 that they were expected within "two or three weeks" from a particular date—namely, the end of this week? What will the hon. Gentleman do to ensure that the House is not treated in a cavalier fashion by the printing authorities, whether they are under our control or are private contractors?

Mr. Morris: I accept the sense of frustration that the hon. Gentleman has expressed about the delay incurred in the


printing of the Select Committee's reports. I hope that he and other hon. Members will appreciate that in recent years there has been an appreciable increase in the volume of Select Committee reports. During 1972 the number of pages of Select Committee reports was 7,513. By 1976 the volume had increased to 11,076. That is the extent and volume of the problem. We are seeking in a variety of different ways to deal with the problem and to reduce delays to an absolute minimum.

Mr. Roper: Does my hon. Friend accept that there is considerable feeling among hon. Members who spend a great deal of time on Select Committees preparing reports on topical subjects that we have to wait three to four months before the reports are printed? Is it not possible for an early decision to be made on new printing capacity for the House so that the delays can be considerably reduced?

Mr. Morris: I agree with my hon. Friend that we need an early decision by the House on new printing capacity for St. Stephen's Parliamentary Press. However, I hope he will accept that over recent years the printing workers at St. Stephen's Press have done a tremendous job in dealing with the increased volume of printing.

Mr. Michael Marshall: The Minister said that Her Majesty's Stationery Office has kept an overall view of these matters. In view of the industrial dispute at Her Majesty's Stationery Office, precisely what are he and his right hon. Friend doing to bring the matter to a speedy conclusion because of the problems that it is causing not only to the House but to outside authorities?

Mr. Morris: My right hon. Friend and I do everything conceivable to resolve industrial difficulties at St. Stephen's Press. [HON. MEMBERS: "Such as?"] The reports of some Select Committees and a number of other reports have gone out to private printers. At present over 30 per cent. of the Select Committee reports are printed in the private sector.

Mr. Lipton: Will my hon. Friend bear in mind that we have quite enough to read already and that there is no hurry to print any more reports? In any case, is it not a fact that after the reports are

printed it will be months or years before the Government do anything about them?

Mr. Morris: I cannot accept the second of my hon. Friend's thoughts, but I endorse the first.

Mr. Finsberg: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I shall seek to raise the matter on the Adjournment at the earliest possible date.

Pensions

Mr. Tim Renton: asked the Minister for the Civil Service whether he is satisfied that the figure of 1¾ per cent. deduction from Civil Service salaries for inflation-proofing of pensions remains correct at a time of 18 per cent. per annum inflation.

Mr. Charles R. Morris: It is totally mistaken to think that a civil servant pays only 1·75 per cent. of his salary for an inflation-proofing pension. This deduction is only one of the deductions made from civil servants' pay on account of their pensions and it cannot be reviewed in isolation from other aspects of Civil Service pay and pensions. No general review is possible while pay research is suspended as part of the Government's policy against inflation.

Mr. Renton: I have a feeling that I have heard that answer before from the Minister. Is it not correct that the deduction for inflation-proofing of the pension is 1¾ per cent.? Is it not also correct that, based on the three years of inflation since the Labour Government came to office, the deduction of inflation-proofing should be in excess for 20 per cent.? Does not this represent a great subsidy of Civil Service salaries which in the end, directly or indirectly, is paid for by the taxpayer?

Mr. Morris: I think that the hon. Gentleman is in error to suggest that the deduction should be as high as 20 per cent. merely because the inflation rate at some time or other might be moving at that rate. The Government Actuary gave a figure of 3 per cent. to the Select Committee on Public Expenditure.

Mr. Wrigglesworth: Does my hon. Friend agree that, despite the sniping from the Opposition on this issue, the people have welcomed the upholding of the pledges on pensions, not only in the public


sector but in respect of old-age pensions generally, in the announcements of recent weeks? Will he tell us what response he has had from the trade unions and public service pensioners to the Prime Minister's announcement a few weeks ago?

Mr. Morris: I have received appreciable appreciation from the trade unions, Government pensioners and pensioners generally for the fact that the Government have honoured their undertaking to act in a fair and reasonable manner in respect of their position as an employer vis-æ-vis civil servants.

Mr. McCrindle: Does it remain Government policy that inflation-proofing should extend only to public service pensions, or do the Government recommend that private pensions should be equally inflation-proofed? In the latter event, has any guidance been given as to where private fund managers can invest for a return of 18 per cent.?

Mr. Morris: I accept that the hon. Gentleman is very knowledgeable about financial matters in the private sector. I wish that occasionally he did not demonstrate his obsession in relation to the Civil Service. I suggest that occasionally he looks at the Inland Revenue rules and the pensions enjoyed by many chairmen and executives of individual private companies who can receive pensions which represent two-thirds of their gross pay for as a little as 10 years' service. That is a state of affairs to which many civil servants would aspire.

Whitley Council Procedures

Mr. Molloy: asked the Minister for the Civil Service if he remains satisfied with present Whitley procedures on all matters affecting the Civil Service; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Charles R. Morris: I am satisfied that the Whitley system in the Civil Service is as good an industrial relations system as anywhere in the country. The system has developed and improved over the past 50 years or so in response to changing circumstances and I have no doubt that this process of evolution will continue.

Mr. Molloy: Is my hon. Friend satisfied that the current structure of Whitley

Councils is flexible enough to take account of the growing industrial elements within the Civil Service and some of the problems that are created by the increase of industrial employment within it, as well as some other elements? Does he believe that the system is sufficiently flexible to take account of all these matters?

Mr. Morris: As a former civil servant, I can tell my hon. Friend that the Whitley system of joint consultation was established and introduced in 1919 as a framework to secure the greatest measure of co-operation between the State, as employer, and its civil servants in matters affecting the Civil Service. The essence of the Whitley system of joint consultation is flexibility. I am confident that it will be equal to the burdens that have recently been imposed upon it.

Civil Servants

Mr. Gow: asked the Minister for the Civil Service what was the number of civil servants on the latest available date; and what was the number, on a comparable basis, on 1st March 1974.

Mr. Charles R. Morris: Civil Service numbers are published in the "Monthly Digest of Statistics", copies of which are available in the Library. The latest figures show that the number of civil servants on 1st April 1977 was 745,600. On 1st March 1974 the comparable figure was 697,100.

Mr. Gow: What steps will the hon. Gentleman and the Government take to reduce the disquieting increase in the number of wealth consumers and expand the number of wealth creators?

Mr. Morris: The hon. Gentleman seems to have overlooked the statement made in July of last year in which we indicated that the Government were concerned about public expenditure on Government administration and were introducing reductions in the amount of public expenditure on manpower. It is envisaged that the reductions that were announced at that time will reduce the Civil Service by about 46,000—namely, 26,000 in the whole of the Civil Departments and about 20,000 in the Ministry of Defence.

Mr. George Cunningham: May I ask the Government not to fix their mind too rigidly on the numbers of civil servants,


bearing in mind that there are ways of increasing revenue, for example, which are highly desirable but can take place and produce a net benefit to the Exchequer only if we are prepared to contemplate an increase in respect of those particular items?

Mr. Morris: I certainly accept the point made by my hon. Friend. I hope that he and the House accept that the size of the Civil Service is related to the tasks that the House gives it to undertake.

Mr. Hayhoe: Will the Minister say whether there has been an increase in the numbers employed by the hived-off agencies which used to be considered as part of the Civil Service—for example, the Manpower Services Commission and such bodies—in addition to this substantial increase in the number of civil servants?

Mr. Morris: I do not have the figures for individual Government agencies immediately at my finger-tips, but I shall be happy to provide them for the hon. Gentleman.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSE OF COMMONS

Refreshment Department

Mr. Ward: asked the Lord President of the Council what action has been taken to implement the recommendations of the report of the committee of inquiry into the House of Commons Refreshment Department, bearing in mind the comment of the committee on the non-implementation of four previous reports.

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Michael Foot): As I have already informed my hon. Friend on 5th July, I consider that the first priority should be to introduce a system of budgetary control in the Refreshment Department as recommended by the committee of inquiry. When this has been established, we can consider the other aspects of the report.

Mr. Ward: Does my right hon. Friend feel that, in order to deal with what was described in the report as the mournful catalogue of ills, it is necessary to elevate the status of catering in the House to have a Department accountable to Mr. Speaker?

Mr. Foot: I certainly agree that that has to be done. We hope in the next Session that the new House of Commons Commission, recommended by the Bottomley Commission, can be proceeded with and that this matter can then be dealt with.

Mr. Greviile Janner: During the interim period, what steps does my right hon. Friend popose to take to improve the lot of the extremely hard-working and often greatly over-worked but much appreciated members of the refreshment staff?

Mr. Foot: If representations are made to those responsible, we shall do our very best to deal with any aspect that is raised on that matter. I think that it is right to have a discussion in the House on proposals for changing the services to hon. Members before we proceed with any of the recommendations in the further report.

Mr. Lipton: Will my right hon. Friend assure the House that these five reports are likely to be discussed before the General Election in 1979

Mr. Foot: Among other enticements to assist us in doing that is ensuring that my hon. Friend will be able to make a full contribution to the debate.

European Community Documents (Motions)

Mr. Spearing: asked the Lord President of the Council if he will review his practice of placing motions on EEC documents on the Order Paper without advance notice in the Remaining Orders of the Day.

Mr. Foot: The practice in tabling motions on EEC documents is the same as for other parliamentary business.

Mr. Spearing: Does my right hon. Friend understand that that was a very disappointing answer? Is he aware that motions dealing with EEC documents can be simply to take note or qualified, and that unless the Government table them two or three days in advance of the debate it is impossible for hon. Members to consider what action they may take? Will he reconsider the matter and perhaps table such motions on the Thursday or Friday of the week in which they are announced?

Mr. Foot: My reply may have been disappointing to my hon. Friend, but it is the truth. We are following the normal practice of the House in these matters. If we were to make a change in the procedure—I am not necessarily saying that it should not be done—it would have to be considered by one of the Committees of the House. If my hon. Friend wishes that to be done, I shall certainly look into it. At the moment, we are following the general practice of the House.

Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg: May I ask the Lord President not to take the easy way out? We know that what he is saying on this occasion is the truth, but the fact is that it is an unsatisfactory truth. Will he please take immediate steps to ask the Sessional Committee on Procedure whether it thinks that the practice should be changed?

Mr. Foot: It is not merely on this occasion that I am pronouncing the truth from the Dispatch Box. It is the same as on all previous and on any future occasions. I am prepared to consider whether this matter should be referred to the Procedure Committee. However, I hope that hon. Members realise that this matter raises the much wider question of how motions are to be put down generally.

Government Legislation

Mr. Gow: asked the Lord President of the Council whether he is satisfied with the progress of the Government's legislative programme as announced in the Queen's Speech; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Foot: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on 16th June to a question by my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, East (Mr. Thomas).

Mr. Gow: Will the Lord President confirm that the Government have now dropped their proposals to take the ship repairing industry into public ownership and to introduce a Bill to remove the restrictions on local authorities to employ direct labour in the construction industry? Will he also tell the House whether, if those measures have been dropped, it is in deference to the alliance with the

Liberal Bench or for what other reasons the Government are abandoning their commitments in the Queen's Speech?

Mr. Foot: Neither of those propositions would stand much chance of getting through the House if we sought to introduce them this Session. We are applying common sense to the position. As for the next and subsequent Sessions, I invite the hon. Gentleman and the House to await the two Queen's Speeches which will follow.

Sir D. Walker-Smith: Although there is clearly much to approve and to jettison in the content of the legislative programme, may I ask whether the Lord President has yet given his attention to the recent publication of Sir William Gale's book suggesting possible methods for improving the drafting, formulation and consideration of legislation?

Mr. Foot: There is not only the proposal to which the right hon. and learned Gentleman refers but there are the recommendations made by the Renton Committee on the subject. The Government have taken account of all those recommendations. I am sure that those discussions will be of considerable help to the parliamentary draftsmen, who are the most important people in some respects in helping and assisting the House. We are always eager to see whether we can improve the drafting of parliamentary legislation.

Devolution

Mr. Adley: asked the Lord President of the Council what further consideration he is giving to holding referenda in Scotland and Wales on devolution for both countries prior to the introduction of legislation; and if he will make a statement.

The Minister of State, Privy Council Office (Mr. John Smith): I have nothing to add to the reply my right hon. Friend gave my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson) on 14th June.

Mr. Adley: Is the Minister still saying that the Government are unable to devise a suitable question unless it is attached to a specific legislative proposal? Does he remain fully satisfied that he is in possession of accurate knowledge about


the views of the people of Scotland on this question?

Mr. Smith: I make a firm judgment, which is based on some direct experience of their views on the desirability of devolution as many of them are my own constituents. The hon. Gentleman has suggested on previous occasions and in this Question that there might be what is called a pre-Bill referendum. The objections that we have previously outlined about the imprecise nature of the question and the effect that subsequent parliamentary amendments would have in the passage of the legislation still remain compelling.

Mr. Tim Renton: asked the Lord President of the Council whether he is considering making the system of regional list voting applicable to the Assemblies under the devolution Bill.

Mr. John Smith: I have nothing to add to the statement made by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on 23rd March.

Mr. Renton: Will the Minister of State ask his right hon. Friend the Lord President whether he voted against the Bill on direct elections because he does not believe in Parliaments and Assemblies—other than Westminster—or because he does not believe in proportional representation, or both?

Mr. Smith: I do not think that that matter arises as a proper supplementary question to the Question put down by the hon. Gentleman. If he reflects on the Question, he will realise the absurdity of suggesting the regional list system for any devolved Assembly.

Mr. Reid: asked the Lord President of the Council if he will make a further statement on the Government's policy with regard to devolution.

Mr. John Smith: I have nothing to add to my right hon. Friend's statement to the House on 14th June.

Mr. Reid: When is the promised paper on fiscal powers for the Assemblies to be published? Does the Minister accept that it is possible to devolve such powers, as in Europe and the United States, if the

will exists? Why should the Assemblies not have responsibility for raising as well as spending money?

Mr. Smith: I think that the hon. Gentleman is anticipating a lot of the arguments which will take place during the passage of the legislation in the next Session of Parliament. There will be a statement on devolution before the House rises for the Summer Recess. On the question of fiscal policy, I suggest that the hon. Gentleman should be careful about drawing parallels with systems which are quite unlike our own.

Private Members' Time

Mr. William Hamilton: asked the Lord President of the Council what plans he has for increasing time available on the Floor of the Commons next Session for Private Members' Bills and motions.

Mr. Foot: None.

Mr. Hamilton: That is disappointing. Does my right hon. Friend realise that there will be ample scope for increasing Private Members' time on motions next Session and that this will be a time for him to exert his well-known championship of the rights of the Private Member?

Mr. Foot: When we come to the next Session, and, I expect, the subsequent Session, we propose that we should provide the same amount of Private Members' time as has been provided by successive Governments for a number of years. My hon. Friend the Member for Fife, Central (Mr. Hamilton) is a great exponent of the art, and I can assure him that there will be plenty of opportunity for discussion of Private Members' Bills.

Mr. John Page: In view of the fact that there might not be a next Session, will the Leader of the House give an assurance that Private Members' Bills which may even today be returning from the other place with Lords amendments to be considered here will be given a great deal of consideration and time during the current Session?

Mr. Foot: All these Bills will be given the normal treatment. As to the fantasies about the next Session, I can assure the hon. Gentleman that not one hon. Member will be led astray by such a hyperbolical statement.

Mr. George Cunningham: Will my right hon. Friend promise that before he tables the motion next Session about Private Members' Bills and motions he will consult hon. Members in all parts of the House, particularly about the division between the time given to Bills and the time given to motions? Does he agree that Private Members' Bill time usually results in something whereas Private Members' motions usually result in absolutely nothing?

Mr. Foot: There is a good deal in what my hon. Friend says. I am prepared to consult to see whether we can alter the balance. If that were to be done, it would have to be done with the concurrence of Private Members generally. I shall consult before the next Session.

Mr. Beith: Has the Leader of the House yet managed to work out how many Private Members' Bills have been aided by Government time since 1964? Is it not wrong that major social issues such as abortion cannot be provided with adequate time without Government assistance? How does he propose to remedy that situation in the next Session?

Mr. Foot: I should not comment on a Bill that is going through. It is right for the Government to apply normal procedures to the allocation of time. That is what we have been doing. If we were to do what some hon. Members and newspapers have urged—if the Government were to intervene on this particular Bill in the way suggested—that would involve a serious infringement of the rights of other hon. Members. If the House wants to change the whole procedure of Private Members' Bills, that is one thing, but they should not ask me to change the procedure on a particular occasion and then attack me not having changed the procedure to suit a particular circumstance.

GRUNVVICK PROCESSING LABORATORIES LIMITED

The Secretary off State for the Home Department (Mr. Merlyn Rees): I shall, with permission, Mr. Speaker, make a statement about demonstrations today in connection with the dispute at Grunwick Processing Laboratories. The House

will appreciate that I did not want to make the task of the Commissioner of Police and his senior officers, who have operational responsibility for policing arrangements, more difficult by calling for elaborate reports while the operation was taking place. I have, however, kept in touch with the Metropolitan Police, met the Commissioner and thought the House would wish to have the following information.
The Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis informs me that up to 10,000 people were outside the premises early this morning. There was some disorder, though considerably less than on some days in recent weeks. Eighteen police officers were injured. The police know of 12 injuries to civilians. Some 69 arrests were made.
The numbers at the premises diminished substantially as people moved off to join the march from Dartmouth Road to Roundwood Park. Over 18,000 people took part in the march, which took place peacefully.

Mr. Whitelaw: Does the Home Secretary appreciate that I am grateful to him for acceding at short notice to my request for this statement? Does he agree that it is totally unacceptable for these vile incidents to take place when a case concerning the dispute is before the High Court and while an inquiry set up by the Government is examining all the issues?
Can he say that the disorder was less than recently when 69 arrests were made and 18 police officers injured? Surely these are very serious figures. In the circumstances, will he dissociate himself and the Government from such acts of violence, which have nothing at all to do with peaceful picketing? Will he reaffirm his full support for the police in upholding the law of the land?

Mr. Rees: The march was not organised by the Government. If people want to march in large numbers in this society, there is no way of stopping them. The information that I gave was collated by Scotland Yard.
As always, we dissociate ourselves from violence. The House should not believe that all those outside Grunwick were supporters of the Labour Party. They were not. We dissociate ourselves from all acts of violence, from wherever they come.

Mr. Pavitt: Is my right hon. Friend aware that I have been there all the morning and that it has been one of the most peaceful and marvellous demonstrations in which I have taken part? There were problems outside the factory this morning, but is my right hon. Friend aware that I deplore that a small minority are able to focus attention on themselves out of 18,000 people and to commit the kind of violence that attracts the media? Is my right hon. Friend further aware that I wish that the media would report the peaceful scenes as well as the violence?

Mr. Rees: My hon. Friend has taken a responsible attitude to this matter from the beginning. It was a peaceful march. Those who wish to march peacefully to show their strong views have every right to do so. Attention is concentrated on the small minority at the gates and the wrong impression is given. Although the number involved in the violence was few, it is unacceptable. Those who indulge in this are not those who support democratic government.

Mr. Hooson: Is it not totally unacceptable to have even one policeman injured at this stage? Is not violence inevitable in these narrow streets when 10,000 people gather at the gates? Is it not the case that many are there with no purpose other than that of intimidation? Is it not time to change the law to prevent this kind of situation?

Mr. Rees: The hon. and learned Member has said much with which I can agree, and again he has mentioned the violence of a small number. Who should be allowed there is not my decision, and I should not attempt to influence decisions about who should be allowed there. That is a matter for the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis. When I am asked to support the police, I support the Commissioner in taking his decisions. This is something which we all learned in Northern Ireland when politicians were taking these decisions. I fully support the Commissioner.

Sir D. Walker-Smith: If the Home Secretary says that there is no way of preventing people marching in procession in large numbers, would he be good enough to study the provisions of the Public Order Act 1936 and the Public Order Act 1963? In view of the disgrace-

ful outcome of today's proceedings and the unacceptable burden that is put upon the police, is it not clear that any repetition of such a procession would give rise to serious public disorder? Will the right hon. Gentleman therefore convey forthwith to the Commissioner his willingness to consent to an order under the Public Order Act prohibiting processions in that area for a specified statutory maximum period of three months?

Mr. Rees: As one might expect, the right hon. and learned Gentleman has his law right about who bears the responsibility and about who approaches whom. The march that was organised by the TUC and APEX, according to the latest information, was perfectly peaceful, and I hope that no one would want to stop that. What we are concerned about are the numbers who were actually around the gate, and that is a different matter.

Mr. Molloy: Is my right hon. Friend aware that probably everyone in the House agrees with the sentiments expressed by the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Whitelaw)? Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will seize this opportunity—he has not done so yet—of making his peaceful contribution by asking Grunwick to accept the old British principle of arbitration and negotiation, which is preferable, as I understand the right hon. Gentleman agrees, to confrontation. As the police have a federation, and as there are some police officers who are concerned about these developments, what guidance can my right hon. Friend give them as to how they can make complaints about the whole tragic situation?

Mr. Rees: I note my hon. Friend's remarks about the root causes of this dispute, which are now being investigated, and I agree with him. With regard to the federation, the proper thing for it to do is to approach the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis. He is the man to talk to on this matter.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: Is the Home Secretary aware that police from all over London are getting fed up with having to go to Grunwick to keep public order outside the gates of the factory? Is he also aware that they and many others are concerned that the Government seem to step


in when there is violence at a football ground, when the same number of policemen, or fewer, are injured, yet the Government do not seem willing to take action in this case but seem willing to tolerate the level of violence and injury to the police that is now taking place?

Mr. Rees: There were 3,700 officers from all over London there this morning. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman has his sources telling him about their being fed up. I have very close contact with policemen on a day-to-day basis. There is no comparison at all with football matches. The march went peaceably. I was asked about the situation outside the plant. There are those who want to cause trouble, and those are the people with whom the police are concerned.

Mr. Prentice: May I ask the Home Secretary to reconsider his attitude to demonstrations in the sense that whereas most of us would accept the absolute right of people to take part in peaceful demonstrations, he will agree, will he not, that, given this situation, these demonstrations are totally superfluous at a time when the court of inquiry is sitting, and, secondly, if they take place with this frequency and on this scale, inevitably there will be some violence on the fringe of the demonstration and therefore some people, including policemen, will be hurt?

Mr. Rees: The organisation of this march, between the TUC, APEX and the Commissioner, has taken place over a number of days. The Commissioner, the TUC and the union concerned have co-operated closely together and never once has the Commissioner even hinted to me that he wanted the march stopped. It is his decision that matters on that, under the Public Order Act, as the right hon. and learned Member for Hertfordshire, East (Sir D. Walker-Smith) said.

Mr. Baker: Will the right hon. Gentleman accept that everyone in the House is against violence, but will he not also accept that many people in this country will be staggered at the irresponsibility of those who organised the mass picketing this morning which led to the violence about which he has talked? Quite apart from praising the police and condemning violence, does he not think that he has a responsibility, together with other senior

Ministers, to condemn those who organised this massive picketing?

Mr. Rees: I think that the hon. Gentleman has got the matter wrong. What the TUC organised was a march. That is what was organised. It did not organise the mass picketing. [Interruption.] Some hon. Members say "No". They should go there and see the situation. The TUC did not organise that. Concerning the picketing, I am told that an APEX organiser was going round there asking people to play it cool. It is not the wish of APEX that it should go in this direction, nor of those concerned with arbitration and normal trade union matters. It is a feature of modern life that this happens, and it is a matter for the police to deal with.

Mr. Bryan Davies: Will my right hon. Friend accept that very large numbers of people participated this morning in what the TUC organised, which was a peaceful demonstration, and does he recognise that when the Opposition concentrate on criticising and condemning violence—as all of us condemn it on both sides of the House—perhaps there is another kind of violence to which they ought to address their minds, which is the violence to the basic rights of workers on occasions by a small minority of politically motivated employers?

Mr. Rees: I have said what I have to say about the peaceful demonstration. It seems to me that what is happening in this dispute is that a small number of extremists on both sides are taking the stage. They are the people who get the media's attention. In my view, the vast majority of people there behaved perfectly properly. It is the small number who get attention.

Mr. Whitelaw: Will the Home Secretary appreciate that, like the right hon. Member for Newham, North-East (Mr. Prentice), I wish to dissociate entirely the question of the march from the question of mass picketing outside the factory? They are surely two entirely different things. The Home Secretary continues to concentrate on the march. What I think many of my right hon. and hon. Friends and myself wish to concentrate on is the supposedly peaceful picketing outside the factory. That is what we wish to concentrate on.
I fully support the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Molloy). Of course everyone wants to see a peaceful attitude. However, if there is a court of inquiry, set up by the right hon. Gentleman's own Government, looking into all the issues of the dispute, such remarks as those made just now by the hon. Member for Enfield, North (Mr. Davies) are totally beside the point. If indeed there is, as well as the court of inquiry, an action before the High Court, would it not be sensible for the Government to appeal to all concerned to call off the picketing and all the action outside the factory while the court action and the court of inquiry go forward? Is not that the responsible and commonsense thing to do?

Mr. Rees: The right hon. Gentleman has seen the point that the march and the picket are separate things, but that distinction was not made in many of the questions that I have been asked. With regard to peaceful picketing, yes, I shall make an appeal. However, if the right hon. Gentleman were to go there and get the abuse that I have had from the people there and from others, he would find that they are not the sort of people who would listen to me or to him, and certainly not to the right hon. Member for Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph).

Several Hon. Members: Several Hon. Members rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I propose to call one more hon. Member from each side of the House.

Mr. Ted Fletcher: Does not my right hon. Friend agree that the best contribution that could be made to cooling the situation would be to get an assurance from Mr. Ward of Grunwick that he was prepared to accept the findings of the court of inquiry?

Mr. Rees: I agree that what matters now is that the arbitration should take place, and if all those involved—and the trade union has said that it will accept the result of the arbitration—would agree to accept the findings, it would make some difference.

Sir K. Joseph: My right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Whitelaw) asked the Home Secretary whether he would appeal to the APEX leaders to withdraw and call off all the

picketing, which is the occasion for the violence, during the court of inquiry and the hearing of the High Court case. The Home Secretary was not being asked to appeal to those who, as he rightly says, probably would not listen to him or to my right hon. Friend, or to me. However, will not the Home Secretary and the authorities of APEX, who surely cannot approve of this violence, call off the picketing which is the occasion for the violence during the inquiry?

Mr. Rees: If the small number of pickets from APEX were withdrawn the other people would still go there. It would make no difference. That is the nature of the dispute.

UGANDA (EXPORT OF ARMS)

Mr. Greville Janner: I beg to ask leave, Mr. Speaker, to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 9, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
the need for immediate action to prevent the export from Britain to Uganda of equipment for the use of Uganda's armed forces or police.
On Thursday of last week my right hon. Friend the Minister of State for Overseas Development answered a Question I had asked her concerning supplies to Uganda for the use of the armed forces or police. She replied:
I understand from the Chairman of the Crown Agents that they have received no recent orders from Uganda for the armed forces or police. They are, however, in the course of completing an order for vehicles which was placed in 1974. The remaining 38 trucks and two Land Rovers are now ready for shipment. The Crown Agents' legal advice is that these vehicles are already the property of the Ugandan Government, and shipment must, therefore, proceed. "—[Official Report, 7th July 1977; Vol. 934, c. 6161]
Taking the view that it would hardly be the wish of this House or the British people that mechanised tumbrils should be sent out to the police or armed forces in Uganda, I inquired of the Department of Trade what it was proposing to do to stop the export of equipment specifically designed for use by the armed forces or police of that terrible dictatorship. The Department's answer was that, as these goods were not classified as military


equipment, even though they were going to the military authorities, their export required no licence and therefore the Department had no power to prevent the export.
The Department of Trade referred me to the Department of Overseas Trade, which said that this was a matter for the Crown Agents, who are independent people, who are servants of Parliament and of the people, but who regarded the giving of any information regarding these orders as matters of commercial confidentiality. Because I did not wish to take the time of the House I sought an undertaking from the Crown Agents that they would at least hold up the export of these goods until this House had had the opportunity at least of discussing whether it would be the will of the Government, of the House and of the people that these goods should be exported.
The managing director of the Crown Agents this morning specifically refused to give me that undertaking. He specifically refused to say whether the goods had been paid for by Amin's régime. He refused to say where the goods were being kept or when they would be shipped. In the circumstances it appeared to me that there was no alternative other than to ask for your ruling, Mr. Speaker, that in this very unusual case it will be necessary for the House to adjourn to debate whether we ought to supply goods for the army or the police of this dreadful dictatorship.
If you refuse your consent, Mr. Speaker—and I fully appreciate that I am entirely in your hands—we do not know whether the goods will be shipped, where they will be shipped from, or precisely where they will be shipped to. It is possible that an opportunity will arise for a debate at a later stage but by then it may be too late. If so, we shall have the moral responsibility in this House of having approved through the Crown Agents, who are agents of the Crown and of Parliament and of the people, the sale of these goods, part of

which are manufactured by British Leyland, in which I believe the British people have a certain interest.
This morning the managing director of the Crown Agents would give me only one more bit of information. He said that the trucks were manufactured by Bedford. I submit that the workers at Bedford and at British Leyland would have certain objections to the fruits of their efforts being shipped out to Amin for use by his police and his army for the suppression of freedom in that country.
This is a matter for the House. The House, through the Government, has decided that diplomatic relations should be broken off with Uganda. The House should decide at this stage that we would not wish any goods whatever to go to Uganda, certainly not those to be used by the armed forces or the police.
This is the only opportunity the House has to debate this issue and I ask you most earnestly, Mr. Speaker, to comply with my application. Otherwise there will be no opportunity, in all probability, for the House to consider this matter.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. and learned Member for Leicester, West (Mr. Janner) gave me notice this morning, before 12 o'clock, that he was to raise this matter and seek an emergency debate on,
the need for immediate action to prevent the export from Britain to Uganda of equipment for the use of Uganda's armed forces or police.
It is not for me, as the House knows, to consider the importance of an issue or whether it should be debated. It is merely for me to decide whether it should be debated in place of the business put down by the Chairman of Ways and Means tonight or should take precedence over the business tomorrow.
I have to rule that the hon. and learned Gentleman's submission does not fall within the provisions of the Standing Order. Therefore, I cannot submit his application to the House. I advise him to look for other means, which he will realise are available in the coming period.

LIBERAL PARTY (POLICY)

3.55 p.m.

Mr. Charles Morrison: I beg to move,
That this House welcomes the new-found acceptance the Leader of the Liberal Party of so many of the policies set out in 'The Right Approach', but deplores his refusal to take the political action to secure their implementation.
It would be improper or out of order if I were to imply that there had been anything other than complete impartiality attaching to my good fortune in initiating this debate. But I must thank the gods who decide who should have good fortune and who guided your hand, Mr. Speaker, towards my number in the Ballot not once but twice.
For 13 wasted years I have put my name into the Ballot on virtually every possible occasion. For 13 years I might just as well have saved myself the trouble. On the last occasion on which there was a Ballot my name came out third and today I was lucky enough to be first.
When I drew third place in the Ballot I tabled a motion in support of electoral reform and I was tempted to do so again today. The electoral system occupied a good deal of the time of the House last week, and so I selected a subject which I hope is of more immediate interest to the House.
If I had tabled a motion on electoral reform I should undoubtedly have re-received the support of the whole Liberal Party, whereas for this motion, in all likelihood, I shall receive the support of only about half of the Liberal Party.

Mr. A. J. Beith: Is the converse not also true? If the hon. Member had tabled a motion on electoral reform he might have received the support of less than half of the Conservative Party whereas he may receive the support of all the Conservative Party on this motion.

Mr. Morrison: That is a matter of opinion and it will not be put to the test, at least not today.
At the outset I should like to make it clear that, unlike the Leader of the Liberal Party, I have never been opposed in principle to electoral pacts or arrangements between parties. Nor am I against

the Liberal Party as such. How could I be against pacts when my party has made such arrangements in the past, for example, with the Liberal Nationals? Who can be sure that at some time in the future the electorate will not decide that similar arrangements should be made once again?
One can foresee the kind of possibility. If, in October 1974, the electorate had returned another Parliament with no overall majority for one party, it would hardly have been possible to go back to the electorate another six or eight months later with yet another request to them from the Prime Minister for a clearer decision. The electorate might not have wanted a one-party Government. If that had happened, Parliament would have had to make the best of it, and it might have to do so at some time in the future.
But the electorate did not so decide in October 1974. According to the electoral system that we use, albeit with its lack of logic, common sense, or anything else, the electorate opted for a Labour Government and that, to its increasing chagrin, is what it has had and what, because of the Liberals, it still has.
I am not against the Liberal Party—at least, its supporters—certainly in my part of the country. Most of those who claim to be Liberals, as far as I can make out, say and think virtually the same things as those who are Tories. The motivation of those who vote Liberal seems little more than a romantic and anachronistic belief that politics are still the same as they were 70 years ago, without an appreciation that the most sensible of Liberal principles and policies were incorporated into Tory thinking many decades ago.
To judge by the latest pronouncement of the Leader of the Liberal Party—what has been termed the ten commandments—the right hon. Gentleman has not yet appreciated this point, either. Had he done so, he could just as well be using those commandments as the basis for a decision by him to join the Tories.
So why did the Liberals do as they did on 23rd March? It was not as though there had been a close or developing connection between the Liberals and the Labour Party over a long period. Instead, the decision to form a pact was


sudden, unexpected and contrary to the wishes of at least a considerable proportion of Liberal supporters in the country. [An HON. MEMBER:" Fewer than the hon. Gentleman thought."] I never hear sedentary interruptions.
So swiftly did the arrangements occur that the Prime Minister might have said of the Liberals, just, as that greatest but most philandering of politicians, Talleyrand, said of a new mistress, "To avoid the scandal of flirting she consented immediately". Horace Walpole referred to the same lady as a talkative trollop. In the same vein, one wonders at the nature of the conversation in that moment of bliss when the left hand side of the Labour master first came into contact with the right hand side of the Liberal mistress. To judge by the comments of some hon. Members below the Gangway on the Government side, it was not and is not very comfortable.
Naturally enough, in his speech on 23rd March during the "no confidence" debate, the Leader of the Liberal Party attempted to justify this arrangement, but I believe that his justification was very thin. The right hon. Gentleman said:
the lack of stable continuity in the planning of our economy is one: of the deeply destructive factors in our economy.
He went on:
we have not been conspicuously successful in the continuous planning of our economy.
A little later he said:
industry requires a much longer period of stability.
Those are fine words and few would disagree with them. But how can they be reconciled with the right hon. Gentleman's other statement:
The agreement lapses at the end of the present Session."—[Official Report, 23rd March 1977, Vol. 928, c. 1311–19]
I know that the right hon. Member for Huyton (Sir H. Wilson) used to say that a week was a long time in politics. Therefore, it could be claimed that any advance on a week is progress in terms of economic management. But the period from March to—again I quote—"the end of the Session"—was barely ambitious and singularly unlikely to, be adequate to provide the stable continuity so desired by industry. All right: the pact may be renewed; equally, it may not be. So where is the continuity?
The fact is that from the moment the Labour Party was unable to support itself in this House a General Election situation existed. When that happens, far from stability, there is the uncertainty that delays economic decisions and investment decisions by industry and that can be removed only by holding a General Election.
The Leader of the Liberal Party has claimed that the pact has removed Socialism from the agenda.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: It was never on. We never saw it.

Mr. Morrison: I am sorry if the hon. Gentleman does not believe that it was on. But Socialism has been removed for the time being anyway, partly because the Socialist parts of the agenda based on the last manifesto have been completed, partly because of the overall arithmetic of the House, and partly because of the economic situation and the International Monetary Fund. With or without a pact, new Socialist measures are simply not a starter at present, thank heaven.
On the other hand, so far as I know, the Liberals have not suggested any repeal of Socialist measures. In spite of their violent criticism of Socialism in the past few years, they have not tried to force any repeals of legislation on this Government as part of their bargain. Nor is there any question, so far as I know, of the Liberals forcing a moderate manifesto on Labour at the next General Election.

Mr. Emlyn Hooson: As the hon. Gentleman's motion refers to "The Right Approach", will he point to any suggestion there for repealing any of the Socialist policy, and, if so, which part?

Mr. Morrison: I am coming to "The Right Approach" later, if the hon. and learned Gentleman will contain himself until then.

Mr. Robert Adley: My hon. Friend has been asked about "The Right Approach", and he will be coming to the part about the aircraft industry, I know, in due course. Is he able to confirm that the Lib-Lab pact was announced before the date of vesting for the nationalisation of the aircraft industry?

Mr. Morrison: As I knew that it was my hon. Friend's intention to attempt to catch the eye of the Chair later, and as I had a lot of other remarks to make, I felt that I should not concentrate on the aircraft industry. I feel certain that my hon. Friend will expand on that theme when he has the opportunity.
So far as I know, there is no intention on the part of the Liberals to force a moderate manifesto on the Labour Party at the next General Election. The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Liberal Party has acknowledged that, saying:
The terms have been agreed to work together, and we have both retained the total independence of our parties from each other in electoral terms and in terms of the House of Commons.
The Prime Minister, in effect, said the same at Aberystwyth on 2nd July when he said:
I ask the whole movement to unite behind its Labour Government in laying the ground work for the electoral gains which will give Labour a working majority next time.
Again, the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Liberal Party originally claimed that the pact
will get the country through the difficult period ahead, especially the pay negotiations." —[Official Report, 23rd March 1977, Vol. 928, c. 1315–19.]
It has not even done that. The right hon. Gentleman may now care to remember that, if there had been a Conservative Government following an April General Election, not only would they have had the authority in coping with the problems of pay stemming from a large majority and massive public support but also would, no doubt, have already set about making reductions in direct taxation, which is one of the first priorities of the next Conservative Government. That alone could by now be acting as an incentive to increase output and moderate wage claims.
Therefore, to my mind, the justifications of the pact are thoroughly spurious and its continuing existence is a nonsense and a contradiction. It will not produce stability it does not control Socialism, and it has not got the country through the pay negotiations—somehing which even this Government would have wanted, with or without the Lib-Lab pact.
There is no doubt, therefore, who has lost as a result of the pact—the British people. Equally, there is no doubt who has gained—the Prime Minister, who has been able to stay a few more months in Downing Street hoping that something will turn up. But, as David Wood pointed out today in The Times:
The advantages to the Government are no more than a temporary salvation from a parliamentary crisis.
Nothing has turned up and within the period of this Parliament nothing will. The jam tomorrow gets further away, as the Prime Minister emphasised at Aberystwith, when he said:
In another five years, we shall be gaining major benefits from our industrial strategy … We want to plan now for the Britain of the 1980s.
What about the Utopia which we were told would arrive in the later years of this Socialist Government?
Nevertheless, it is nice to hear that new-found realism by the Prime Minister in place of the former unclouded optimism. Perhaps such becoming modesty should reap its own reward, but it does not. So whenever any part of it has had the opportunity, the electorate has shown its clear opinion that it is time for a change: Woolwich, Workington, Walsall, Stechford, Grimsby, Ashfield and now Saffron Walden, every one a knock-out victory for the Conservative Party and every one a shattering blow to Labour and the Liberals.
Yet I am told that Saffron Walden is considered by some Liberals as a victory —a Pyrrhic victory, I assume. They should remember what King Pyrrhus said:
Another such victory, and we are lost.
If the Saffron Walden victory were repeated in all Liberal seats, the casualty list, based on the Liberal Party's own assessment of the swing from them to the Conservatives, would read as follows: the hon. Members for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith), Truro (Mr. Penhaligon), Isle of Wight (Mr. Ross), Isle of Ely (Mr. Freud) and Cornwall, North (Mr. Pardoe), the right hon. Member for Devon, North (Mr. Thorpe), the right hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. Steel) and the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson).

Mr. David Penhaligon: Might not another interpretation of Saffron Walden be that, at this great high point in the Conservative advance, 25,000 people chose to vote for them but 43,000 chose not to? With that in mind, should one not regard the possibilities as still open?

Mr. Morrison: In fact the Conservative vote went up. I have no doubt that Conservative voters were so confident of victory that they did not think it was necessary to bother too much.
All that would be left after that casualty list is a five-a-side football team—provided, of course, that the SNP did not gobble up the hon. Member for Inverness (Mr. Johnston). It would be better if the Liberals had an election now, since otherwise before long there may not be enough of them for a game of patience.
No wonder the hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Smith) wrote in Liberal News on 5th July:
David Steel is wrongly motivated. He desperately believes in coalition as a method of government. I think it should only be used when all the partners to a coalition have enough Members to back up their position. And 13 Members is a ridiculous number for us to be talking about a coalition.
Ridiculous, yes—and destructive, too.
But if there has been one good thing about the past few months it is that the Liberal Leader has realised that, as things get worse and worse for the Government and as their days are more and more numbered, it is more important for him to discover what the Conservative Party stands for. Clearly, he has been reading "The Right Approach". As he has read it, so he has clearly become ever more attracted by it. So much so that he has included huge chunks of it in his ten commandments.
First, tax reforms aid cuts are on page 42 and elsewhere. Second, employee profit-sharing is referred to on page 29 and elsewhere. Third, help for small businesses and self-employed is on page 35 and elsewhere. The fourth commandment relates to the Official Secrets Act and I grant that "The Right Approach" makes no mention of that, but it is our policy—this has been confirmed for me —to amend that legislation, and the Government have been pressed to act in the

light of the recommendations of the Franks Committee.
Fifth, housing grants for first-time buyers and rent de-restriction are on page 50 and thereafter. Sixth, reduction of the Civil Service bureaucracy is referred to on page 23 and elsewhere. Seventh, reduced unemployment, especially among the young, is a major theme of Chapters 4, 5, 6 and 7.
I am sorry to say that we seem to miss out on the eighth commandment about strengthening the powers of the Monopolies Commission. However, our policy was explained clearly on 21st June by my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Mrs. Oppenheim):
the Monopolies Commission should be reinforced and strengthened".—[Official Report, 21st June 1977; Vol. 933, c. 1107.]
That seems not to be in discord with the Liberal view.
Ninth, an Assembly for Scotland is dealt with on page 49. I grant that we do not commit ourselves to an Assembly in Wales, but few seem to want that anyway and perhaps the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Liberal Party has not taken that on board yet. Tenth, direct elections are on page 68—and, yes, with proportional representation if 1 have my way.
It is a pity that the right hon. Gentleman did not read "The Right Approach" sooner. He might have discovered how much he agreed with Conservative policy so much earlier. He might have decided to force an election immediately, in which case he would have done the country a service and would have lost many fewer seats for his party. Instead, he remains glued to the Labour Party, which, whatever its stance may be now, since 1974 has pushed this country further to the Left than any Government in history. What is more, this Government have a future based on Labour's programme for 1976.
How does the Leader of the Liberal Party believe that his ten commandments can be reconciled in any lasting manner with Labour's programme to bring in more income tax, to undertake a major expansion of public ownership or vastly to increase bureaucracy as a result of the


tangle of new powers and boards proposed, or to cut mortgage tax relief? Those are but part of the policy objectives of the party that the Liberals are now keeping in power.
In the foreword to that programme, Mr. Ron Hayward, the General Secretary of the Labour Party, wrote:
Labour's programme as approved by the Conference is the policy of the Labour Party … It describes not only the ideals of our Party, but also the policies to make them a reality".
I grant that he also said that the programme was not a manifesto, but he emphasised that it was on the basis of that programme that the Labour manifesto would be drawn up.
Who would deny that likelihood when comparing that manifesto with some of the more immoderate comments by Labour Members below the Gangway? The Prime Minister may play down the programme, but no one should forget that, with Labour constituency parties going further and further to the Left, and therefore with many moderate Labour Members under fire and others being replaced by extremists when they retire the threat of that programme is ever more real. It is time for the Liberal Party to cry "Enough".
As I have said, I am in favour of constitutional change and if this House is to order the government of our country in future with more success, it is high time we set about making constitutional change. But the Liberals' experiment has failed because it was based on unreal and weak foundations. Let them stop it now. If they do not, the millstone of this Labour Government will drown them as much as it sinks itself and in the meanwhile they will be doing the country a gross disservice.

4.19 p.m.

Mr. Emlyn Hooson: The trouble with the hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Morrison) is that he is so moderate that he was unable to move the motion standing in his name with any conviction. In fact, if there were many more like him in the Conservative Party it would be easier for the Liberals to contemplate an agreement with the Conservatives. The hon. Gentle-

man is so naive that he actually believes that the Tories would proceed to implement what is set out in "The Right Approach".
I commiserated with the hon. Gentleman when he confessed that, although he has been in the House for 13 years, this is the first time that he has ever been successful in the Ballot for motions. I was able to commiserate with the hon. Gentleman because I have been in the House for 15 years and have never succeeded in the Ballot.

Mr. Adley: The hon. and learned Gentleman will not have much longer here.

Mr. Hooson: That is what the Tories have been saying for the past 14 years. However, if I were to achieve success in the Ballot I should not waste my motion on the Tory Party. Members of the Tory Party have been in the starting blocks for the election now for so long that their tendons have become weakened. If the gun is fired they will go limping along the track. We are seeing a series of Achilles heels which I will point out by reference to "The Right Approach".
Implied in the motion is the belief that a Conservative Government can be relied upon to implement polices set out in their manifesto and not to carry out diametrically opposite policies. In my formative years when I was 18 and had just entered the Navy, a young Communist came to me and gave me a book called "The Constitution of the Soviet Union". I read the book and was tremendously impressed. It seemed to me to depict the ideal democracy. Yet, as every one of us knows, in fact as opposed to theory, nothing could be further from the truth. Conservative policies are very like that.
Great play has been made of "The Right Approach" and the policies set out therein. I read the document with great interest but was unable to find any policies in it. There are a series of interesting clichés. I remember the story of Ernie Bevin at the Dispatch Box saying to his Prime Minister Attlee about a speech by Anthony Eden "There is not much in there, Clem, but cliché after cliché"—or, as he put it, "clitch after ditch". It is exactly the same with "The Right Approach".
What I did, as hon. Members would expect, was to get the Conservative manifesto for 1970—"A Better Tomorrow" —and compare the theory with the practice.

Mr. Adley: Before the hon. and learned Gentleman comes on to that—

Mr. Hooson: The hon. Gentleman must not disturb me. He has been in the starting blocks for too long. He must not get too anxious.

Mr. Adley: So the hon. and learned Gentleman will not give way?

Mr. Hooson: No.

Mr. Adley: Typical.

Mr. Hooson: Not at all. It is very interesting to compare what was said in 1970 with what is said in 1977. The two documents have amazing resemblances. What was said in 1970 was not carried out, as I shall show later.
I looked at "A Better Tomorrow", first at the section dealing with the control of public expenditure. We all know that this is very important to the Conservatives when they are in Opposition. There is nothing that they like to emphasise more, and "The Right Approach" does not depart from the tradition. The hon. Member for Devizes referred to certain pages in "The Right Approach". Let me refer him to page 24 where it says:
public spending cuts are essential if we are to bring the economy back into balance".
That is what is said in 1977. So I look to see what the Conservatives said in 1970. At page 10 of "A Better Tomorrow" the Conservatives said—

Mr. Fergus Montgomery: Reading.

Mr. Hooson: The hon. Gentleman must not be jealous—he will learn in good time. The Conservatives said in "A Better Tomorrow", under the heading "Controlling Government Spending",
We will reduce the number of Ministers. We will reduce the number of civil servants: under Labour their numbers have grown by over 60,000.
So I looked at the statistics to discover what had actually happened. Between 1970 and 1974, the period of the Conservative Government, there was an

increase in central Government employees of 209,000, not 60,000 as it had been under the Labour Government. The theory was one thing, but the practice was to exaggerate what the Labour Government had done.
It was said in 1970, for example,
Some present government activities could be better organised using competent managers recruited from industry and commerce. Plans to achieve this new style of government are well advanced. It would be more efficient and less costly.

Mr. Norman Tebbit: What has this to do with the motion?

Mr. Hooson: The hon. Gentleman is never able to follow these debates properly. If I had to explain the matter at his low level it would take me the remaining part of this debate.
The number of local authority employees increased in the period by 285,000. Yet in their policy document the Conservatives had indicated that he number of public servants would be reduced, that there would be a tremendous cut in costs.

Mr. Tebbit: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. This is a short debate. It might be useful if you would ask hon. Members to confine their remarks to the Lib-Lab Pact and the
new-found acceptance by the Leader of the Liberal Party of so many of the policies set out in 'The Right Approach'.
After six minutes of the speech of the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson) we have not reached any of those matters.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bryant God-man Irvine): I have been looking at exactly the same words in the motion and I have no doubt that the hon. and learned Gentleman is also doing so.

Mr. Hooson: I am talking about "The Right Approach" and asking what reliance can be placed upon the alleged policies therein set out.

Mr. Ioan Evans: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. As some of us will, perhaps, be making similar points to those that the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson) is making, may I put it to you that he is arguing that no one should trust what the Tory Party puts into its manifestos. He is comparing


what they said in their manifesto for the 1970 election and what transpired after 1970. Surely the hon. and learned Gentleman is perfectly in order to draw attention to the Tories' past record to determine what they are likely to do in the future.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I have not indicated anything to the contrary.

Mr. Hooson: So I understood, Mr. Deputy Speaker. As the Conservatives said in their election manifesto in 1970 that they would cut down on public sector expenditure and as they repeat it in "The Right Approach", it is very interesting to see what they actually did when they were in Government. In 1970 the total public expenditure was £21,866 million, yet by 1974 when the Tories left office it was £41,930 million.

Mr. Timothy Raison: In real terms?

Mr. Hooson: I will state it in percentage terms. There was a 91·8 per cent. increase in public expenditure between 1970 and 1974, including debt interest. Excluding debt interest, the increase was 93·2 per cent. Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that under the Tory Government inflation was 93 per cent. in that period? What the Tories did in fact was to fuel the fires of inflation.

Mr. Raison: We all recognise that public expenditure went up under the last Conservative Government, but it did so with the active encouragement of the Liberal Party. For example, in his speech in the 1973 Budget debate, the hon. Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Pardoe), who lectures our Front Bench these days about the fact that money supply was a little lax during that time, warned the then Chancellor, the present Lord Barber,
I fear that the Chancellor is already giving signs that he may yield to the conservative and over-cautious voices behind him."—[Official Report, 12th March 1973; Vol. 852, c. 953.]
He was talking about hon. Members such as my hon. Friends the Members for Oswestry (Mr. Biffen) and Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley), who were saying that there should not be an increase in public expenditure or in the money supply. The hon. Member for Cornwall, North was saying that the Government should be spending more.

Mr. Hooson: The Conservative Government increased public expenditure enormously between 1970 and 1974 and they financed it by increasing the money supply.
Let us consider what the Conservatives call in "The Right Approach" the main aims of their political strategy. They are:
To enable the country to live within its means, through the reduction and control of public expenditure and the rebuilding of a healthy and thriving mixed economy in which taxes can be lower and profits can fulfil their proper function.
Those aims are unexceptionable, but the Conservatives set out the same aims in 1970 and totally failed to achieve them. They never lived within their means. There was a surplus on the books when they took office. Mr. Roy Jenkins was the last Chancellor of the Exchequer to balance the books, and they were not balanced in any year of that Conservative Government's period of office.
They talk now about profits fulfilling their proper function, but when they were last in power the profits made by industry were not channelled into investment. We had the great property speculation and much of the money that should have been invested in structural changes in our industry were squandered. What the Conservatives say and what they do are two entirely different things.

Mr. Penhaligon: I think that my hon. and learned Friend is being a little unfair to the Conservative Party. The Tories promised to reorganise local government, health authorities and water authorities and, if my recollection is correct, they did so.

Mr. Hooson: My hon. Friend is right. I have been depriving the right hon. Member for Leeds, North, East (Sir K. Joseph) of the credit for reforming the National Health Service. He was and is a great apostle of economy and nowadays he goes around in sackcloth and ashes for what he did between 1970 and 1974—but a leopard does not change its spots.
Under the right hon. Gentleman, expenditure on the National Health Service, as a percentage of our gross national product, increased from 4·6 per cent. in 1970 to 5·2 per cent. in 1974 and expenditure


on administration within the Service went up from about 23 per cent. to 27 per cent. of total spending. That represents about 1 per cent. increase a year. Those are enormous sums. We have had to cut down on public expenditure recently because so much of it was misdirected under the last Conservative Government into increased bureaucracy in local government, the NHS and the Civil Service generally.

Mr. Nicholas Fairbairn: II the hon. and learned Gentleman thought that the last Conservative Government were so bad, why did he not suggest that electors should vote Labour rather than Liberal in the 1974 General Elections, and if he thinks that the Labour Party is so good, why did his party not form this funny pact as soon as Labour got into office?

Mr. Hooson: I have not yet said a word about the Government.

Mr. Adley: The hon. and learned Gentleman has not yet said a word about the motion.

Mr. Hooson: I have said a great deal about the motion—and I have hardly started yet. This is the introductory part of my speech.
We look at manifestos to see what a party is going to do if it becomes the Government. We all remember the tremendous adherence of the right hon. Member for Sidcup (Mr. Heath) to his incomes policy, but his 1970 manifesto A Better Tomorrow" said:
Labour's compulsory wage control was a failure and we will not repeat it.
But that is exactly what they did.

Mr. Tebbit: And it was a failure, was it not?

Mr. Hooson: Yes, it was a failure. The whole Government were a failure.

Mr. Raison: The hon. and learned Gentleman has reached an important point. The Liberal manifesto in October 1974 said:
a statutory prices and incomes policy is absolutely necessary as an essential weapon against inflation.
Will the hon. and learned Gentleman give a categorical assurance that his party will stand by that during the next few weeks?

Mr. Hooson: If the hon. Gentleman's party and the Labour Party had backed an incomes policy in the 1960s and under the last Conservative Government, this country would not be suffering from the galloping inflation that we are now experiencing.

Mr. Tebbit: Answer the question.

Mr. Hooson: The truth is that the last Conservative Government—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. If there were a little more quiet, I might be able to hear truth when it is promulgated.

Mr. Hooson: I am sorry that you missed it, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Do you want me to start again?

Mr. Fairbairn: Yes, from the beginning, and get it right this time.

Mr. Hooson: I should not get it right in the terms of the hon. and learned Member for Kinross and West Perthshire (Mr. Fairbairn)—thank God!
The 1976 "Economic Trends" includes a table showing the increase in money stock—M3—under the last Conservative Government. The Tories make a good deal of the need to control the money supply, but in 1970, when they came into power, M3 increased by £1,586 million. In 1973, it increased by £7,232 million. This enormous increase in the money supply was one of the major causes of inflation in this country.
I hope that you will agree, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that by comparing "A Better Tomorrow" with the record of the last Conservative Government I have put their latest manifesto "The Right Approach" in the correct perspective. It is a propaganda exercise that is intended to appeal to the electorate but not to bind the next Conservative Government in any way.
I come to that part of the motion which states
That this House welcomes the new-found acceptance by the Leader of the Liberal Party of so many of the policies set out in 'The Rieht Approach '.
Seven out of 10 points in the so-called shopping list can be found in the Liberal manifesto of 1970, "What a Life". The title "What a Life" was correct, because the Conservative Government followed us, and look what happened then! That


Government took the country to the brink of disaster.

Mr. Toby Jessel: When the Conservative Government to whom the right hon. and learned Gentleman refers were in office, the real standard of living of the British people improved by 10 per cent. in three and a half years, but in the last three and a half years of the Labour Government, which he supports, the real living standards of the British people have been stationary.

Mr. Hooson: What the hon. Gentleman says is untrue. The last Conservative Government left this country heavily in debt and with galloping inflation. However, the present Labour Government behaved very badly in their first two years of office, when there was little to choose between the red devils of the Labour Party and the deep blue sea of the Conservative Party. That posed a dilemma for my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Liberal Party. He was prepared, in the interests of the country, to support a Government that had a chance of implementing moderate policies and achieving some continuity.
The Conservative Opposition have failed to recognise a very important point that was stated by the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell), who has more experience of the Conservative Party than anyone on the Opposition Benches today. The right hon. Gentleman stated—I think correctly—that no recent Government have brought about greater control of public expenditure than the present Government in the last one and a half years. That is true. We all know that the number of civil servants and local government officials has dropped. This does not justify many of the policies carried out by the Government in their first two years of office, but it shows that they have changed their ways somewhat.
We in the Liberal Party came to the conclusion that it was in the interests of the country to allow the Government the opportunity—

Mr. Leon Brittan: Of redeeming themselves.

Mr. Hooson: Yes—of redeeming themselves. Sometimes I think that there is

hope for the hon. Member for Cleveland and Whitby (Mr. Brittan). He is absolutely right.
In The Times of Monday 21st November this year. [HON. MEMBERS: "This year?"]. I should have said 21st March this year. If the mistakes of members of the Conservative Party were as elementary as that, I could forgive them.
In The Times, it was stated:
But there is much to be said, if it can be obtained, for an arrangement that would permit the present Government to remain in office for a bit while ensuring that there would be no more extremist measures. That would be preferable in the national interest to an immediate election at this time. But it does depend on an effective assurance from the Government on the moderation of their ways.
In fact, The Times repeated this advice in a leading article on 23rd March and The Sunday Times stated on 19th March:
This is not the moment for a General Election. But it is a salutary moment for a jolt to the Labour Government.
The Daily Mirror stated on 22nd March:
Parliament is gripped by … election fever … The biggest loser from an election now would be Britain. … An election would cause uncertainty. Undermine economic recovery. Imperil the pound.
The Opposition parties should take a hint from the City of London where shares crashed by £1,000 million yesterday at the talk of an election.

Mr. Charles Morrison: As the hon. and learned Gentleman has been quoting from leading articles, will he refer to a leading article in The Times on 16th June, which, under the heading
The case for an autumn election",
stated:
Small wonder after all the embarrassments that the Liberals have suffered and the ineffective operation of the pact that unless the Government pull themselves together there may have to be an election in the autumn. There is now a strong case in the national interest for having it then."?

Mr. Hooson: Judging from the hon. Gentleman's hesitation in reading the quotation, the printing seems to be as bad as the opinions. If the hon. Gentleman is making an application we shall consider it.
The Liberal Party believes that the moderate centre of British political life should have been strengthened [HON. MEMBERS: "Join the Tribune Group."]


The Tribune Group has less influence over the Labour Government's policies than it has ever had in this Parliament. When my party had to choose between the ideologues below the Gangway on the Labour side of the House and the gamblers who gambled with the economic life of this country between 1970 and 1974, it was a very difficult choice to make. I preferred to go to a Government prepared to moderate their policies.
I am prepared, as a Liberal, to make an arrangement if necessary with the Conservatives. I have never had any other view. I am prepared to moderate any Government to prevent the Right-wing lunatics getting hold of the Conservative Party, just as I am prepared to prevent the Left-wing lunatics getting hold of the Labour Party. I imagine that the hon. Member for Devizes would not greatly disagree with me on that point. We both want to improve the political weighting of the centre in British political life.
The majority of people in this country want a moderate progressive Government. They do not want violent swings to the Left and Right. It was in the interests of the country that the Liberal Party should not be afraid to touch power and should not be afraid of this great experiment of moderating a Government to whom they were offering their support on an agreed programme. If Conservative Members cared about this country, they would be prepared to do the same, rather than pursue the partisan policies that in fact they pursue. The Conservative Party puts forward this mythological programme "The Right Approach", but we know from the Conservatives' record that they would never begin to achieve it.
This country is in an economic strait-jacket—

Mr. Tebbit: We knew that.

Mr. Hooson: Sometimes I wish that the hon. Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit) was in a straitjacket too.
My right hon. Friend the Leader of the Liberal Party has followed the policies that he recently suggested to the Prime Minister for years. There is nothing new in them. There is no "new-found acceptance" by my right hon. Friend. Many of these policies were in the Liberal manifesto in 1970 and only now have a few been adopted in "The Right

Approach". That is the trouble with the Conservative Party—they are almost always seven years out of date.

4.49 p.m.

Mr. Michael Stewart: The concluding words of the motion deplore the refusal of the Leader of the Liberal Party to take the political action that would secure the implementation of the policies set out in "The Right Approach". I do not think that I misinterpret what the hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Morrison) said when I point out that the action that he wants taken is the action of the Liberal Party mobilising itself to bring about the defeat of the Government, a General Election, and, as the hon. Gentleman would hope, the installation of the Tory Party in power. But, as the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson) said, it is open to question whether the return of the Conservative Party would cause the policies set out in "The Right Approach" to be put into force. The record of comparison between what the Conservatives said that they would do and what in fact happened does not give us great confidence.
Surely one of the matters we are bound to discuss on this motion is whether it would be a public advantage for the Liberal Party, or indeed anyone else, to take action which might result in the return of the Tory Party. In order to answer that question, let us consider the present situation.
The Labour Government came to power at a time of enormous economic difficulty. Many of those difficulties still persist throughout the world. But increasingly the evidence mounts that events are beginning to move in the right direction.
Inflation is substantially more under control than it was when the Government took office. The prospects for our export trade are substantially better. The outlook for investment is substantially better. These opinions are expressed not only by people in this country but, as we have witnessed recently, by a number of well-informed international authorities.

Mr. Adley: Mr. Adley rose—

Mr. Stewart: I do not propose to give way. This is a short debate and we have already had a lot of cross-talk.
The question which causes great anxiety in our domestic politics is what is to happen about prices and incomes policy. If one is anxious about that, could any course of action be more imprudent than to entrust the conduct of our affairs to the Conservative Party when we remember that the last Conservative Government collapsed on this very point—their inability to establish a satisfactory relationship with organised labour or to find an answer to the problem of the level of incomes or the control of prices? On the evidence, then, there does not appear to be any special ground for supposing that turning the Government out and putting the Conservative Party in would be a public advantage.
However, I also urge this argument. The Conservative Party needs a bit more time to find out what its policies are. Some of them are set out in "The Right Approach", but other bits are shot at us across the Floor of the House week after week. We are told the things that it believes in. They add up to a very puzzling collection.
For example, we know from some Opposition Front Bench spokesmen that the Conservative Party, if it took office, would spend more money on defence. We know that it would abolish the rating system. Therefore, presumably, local authorities would have to obtain funds from some other source. But we know also that it would abolish the Community Land Act, which would be a valuable source of income to local authorities. Therefore, presumably, it would have to provide local authorities with more central Government funds.
All this—more grants to local authorities instead of rates and the Community Land Act, more money to be spent on defence and, as we have just been told, really wealthy people to pay substantially less in taxes—

Mr. Raison: May I help the right hon. Gentleman? According to the public expenditure White Paper, a public expenditure deficit would be incurred under the Community Land Act. There would be a loss to Government for the quinquennium as a result of the working of the Act.

Mr. Stewart: The hon. Gentleman must know that an Act of that kind is an investment for the future. The Community Land Act will put into the public purse unearned gains that now go to private people. That is mainly why Conservatives object to it. That is the reason for their wanting to get rid of it.
When we add up all these considerations—more money on defence, more grants for local authorities instead of rates, and reduced taxation for really wealthy people—we realise that the Tory Party needs longer to work out the sums and to decide exactly how to make ends meet.
We know how the Conservative Party did it in the past. It did not have the nerve to cut public expenditure or to raise the necessary taxation. It did it by having recourse to the printing press. In view of what the Conservatives are now saying about reduced taxation in one direction and increased expenditure in another, if the country were to allow them to come to power now they would be faced with the same dilemma.
The Conservatives need to do a bit of adding up not only on financial matters. There is reference in "The Right Approach" to an Assembly for Scotland, but, after the long debates on the devolution Bill, can anyone say exactly what the Conservative Party proposes or what would be the powers of such an Assembly? I gather that it is to be an Assembly without an Executive, and I have never understood the point of that. The Conservatives must have a bit more time before they can pronounce on devolution, just as they must have more time before they can say how they will make the public accounts add up.
This country, though not the imperial Power it once was, still carries considerable responsibility abroad. Not long ago we had a debate late at night, which was not very well attended, on a sanctions order for Rhodesia. The extreme wild men of the Conservative Party voted against the order for the perfectly good reason that they sympathised with the Ian Smith Government. Naturally, the respectable remaining Members of the Conservative Party would not go as far as that. However, when it came to a Division between the Government and


those who wanted the order and the wild men of the Tory Party, the respectable Tories remained seated on the Opposition Benches and did not vote.
I cannot feel that that is an attitude suitable to a party which claims to be fit to wield power. We must give it a little more time. While speaking of African matters, let me say that one of the outstanding special characteristics of the 1970 Tory Government was that one of their first actions was to announce that they would sell arms to South Africa. What is their view on that subject now? They have been rather silent about it. I do not think that the Liberal Party, or indeed anyone else, should take action which would face the country with the possibility of bringing the Conservative Party to power until we know what it thinks on that subject.
There are wider questions of foreign policy. One gained the impression from speeches and questions of the right hon. Lady the Leader of the Opposition that she had a very poor opinion of the Helsinki Agreement. If the Conservative Party were in power now, would it have sent representatives to the Belgrade conference? Would it have taken a line in foreign policy different from that of all our partners in the EEC and all our allies? To judge from the speeches and questions of the Leader of the Opposition, presumably it would. But the Conservatives did not make it clear if faced with the responsibility what they would do on a great matter of that kind. They must, therefore, have a little more time to think.
One knows that this motion is tied up with a campaign run in certain quarters of the Press which are trying to argue that the Government are under a sort of moral duty to call a General Election now. That, of course, is nonsensical. The constitution is perfectly clear: one has a General Election either when time has run out or when the Prime Minister of the day requests a General Election, or if and when the House of Commons explicitly tells the Government to go.
One does not have a General Election simply because the Government are running through a bad patch. Othewise there would have been a General Election in 1957 or 1958, to the great damage

of the Conservative Party. One does not have General Elections because leader writers in The Times think that there ought to be one. When Bagehot wrote he said
The Times has made many Ministries
Times have changed since then. I doubt whether 10 minutes' vexation is as much as any leader in The Times can cause any Prime Minister today.
However, we are indebted to The Times for another sidelight of what a Conservative Government might be like. We gather from an article in The Times that the Leader of the Opposition is the spiritual heir to Adam Smith, John Stuart Mill, Martin Luther, the Christian religion and Oliver Cromwell. We ought to know a little more to which her allegiance is primarily given before she and her party are put at the helm of affairs.
I regard the reference to Cromwell as peculiarly sinister when we remember the scene in the House a few days ago when the Leader of the Opposition was demanding of the Prime Minister that he should make an emphatic and solemn repudiation of one of his hon. Friends who happened to use the phrase "civil war". Does the heir to Oliver Cromwell now complain about civil war? He was the greatest practitioner.
The plain fact is that this attempt to present, both in this motion and in other contexts, an incoming Tory Government as the saviour of all that is best and noblest in British tradition is absolute nonsense. There is nothing whatever, either in their philosophy or in their record. to justify that.
It is no part of my duty to claim that this Government are perfect in all respects. I have been in politics long enough to know that one cannot claim that of any Government. But heaven help us if we are ready to hand over our affairs to a party whose main characteristic in home affairs is the daily quarrel with organised labour, which arranges its financial affairs mainly in the interests of sections of the community that are already well off and unproductive, and whose attitude towards foreign affairs is unpleasantly tinged with racialism and extremely muddled about the great question of our relations with the Communist part of the world.
A situation of that kind has only to be stated to be rejected. I do not pretend that we possess all the virtues, but I should have thought that when we have a Government who are, as the evidence shows, making progress with our enormous economic difficulties and who work well with our friends and allies in world affairs, it is a reasonable and right choice for the Liberal Party to help sustain that Government in power.

5.4 p.m.

Mr. Fergus Montgomery: I found the speech of the right hon. Member for Fulham (Mr. Stewart) rather curious because he seemed to imply that a Conservative Government were not able to work with organised labour. I can only assume that the right hon. Gentleman was referring to the dispute that took place in February 1974 between the then Conservative Government and the miners. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman was not saying that he backed the miners on that occasion. If that is the case, I am curious to know what the right hon. Gentleman's views are now of the demands that the miners are making and the damage that they will do to the social contract. The attitude of his party in 1974 is one of the reasons why people should not vote Labour. It was also wrong of the right hon. Gentleman to allege that a Conservative Government could not work with the unions. The right hon. Gentleman did a great disservice by trying to make that point in this debate.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Mr. Morrison) on initiating this debate. It has given us the opportunity to discuss at some length one of the most squalid manoeuvres that we have ever known in British politics. I do not believe for a moment that this was a shotgun marriage. Usually in a shotgun marriage there is an unwilling bridegroom and a willing bride. In this case we had a willing bridegroom and a willing bride. They were only too eager to come to any sort of arrangement in order to prevent a General Election from taking place.
On the one hand we have a Prime Minister who obviously wants to go on being Prime Minister and who is frightened of a General Election because he knows all too well what the verdict of

the people of this country will be on his discredited Government. On the other hand, we have the Leader of the Liberal Party who realises that if we had a General Election at this time it would decimate his already tiny band of Liberal Members of Parliament. I believe that the motive for the Lib-Lab pact was not the well-being of the nation but rather what the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson) was trying to imply, the self-preservation of the Government and the Liberal Party.
The Liberal Party must have already seen what many one-time Liberal voters think about this pact, because there has been a mass desertion of people who previously voted Liberal in by-elections and in the county council elections in May. I have no doubt that the result in Saffron Walden will be heralded by certain Liberals as the new dawn for the Liberal Party.

Mr. Beith: Do not exaggerate.

Mr. Montgomery: Had the hon. Gentleman watched television on Friday he would have seen his hon. Friend the Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Pardoe), in his capacity as deputy Chancellor of the Exchequer, pontificating that the Saffron Walden result was not a very good result for the Conservative Party. We had the hon. Member for Cornwall, North and the Leader of the Liberal Party almost doing cartwheels of pleasure because the Liberals had managed to come second. That they tried to pretend that the result was not a good result for the Conservative Party shows how deeply their heads are buried in the sand. I do not think that it was a bad achievement for the Conservative Party to increase its vote in Saffron Walden on a smaller poll.

Mr. Beith: Why did they stay at home?

Mr. Montgomery: It may well be that disgruntled Liberals stayed at home or that people were away on holiday.

Mr. Penhaligon: It was disgruntled Liberals.

Mr. Montgomery: The hon. Gentleman said that disgruntled Liberals stayed away, but that is a terrible indictment of the Lib-Lab pact because I have no doubt that that was one of the reasons why


those Liberals did not bother to turn out and vote in Saffron Walden.

Mr. Tebbit: Surely the essence is that our vote in Saffron 'Walden went up by 1,000—which is not bad in a by-election —and the Lib-Lab vote fell by 11,000. That cannot be good for Lib, Lab or the pact.

Mr. Montgomery: My hon. Friend is right, as usual. We not only increased our vote but more than doubled the majority. If that had happened to a Liberal candidate I am sure that the hon. Member for Cornwall, North would have hailed it as the greatest thing since sliced bread. But that is never likely to happen to a Liberal candidate in this country in this century.
The truth is that the Liberal Party has so little to cheer about that if its horse came in second in a two-horse race it would regard that as a great triumph.

Mr. Penhaligon: Sutton and Cheam.

Mr. Montgomery: Sutton and Cheam happened a long time ago. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman is some sort of Rip van Winkle who has been asleep for the past few years. Sutton and Cheam came back to the Conservative Party and we now have a Conservative Member representing Sutton and Cheam.

Mr. Penhaligon: If the hon. Gentleman is arguing that by-election results show that the Government have lost the support of the people, why did the Tory Party not have an election after the Sutton and Cheam, Isle of Ely and Ripon by-elections?

Mr. Montgomery: The point is that at that time the Conservative Government had a majority in Parliament. The difference now is that the Labour Government have not a majority in Parliament. They are a discredited Government who have lost many seats in by-elections.

Mr. Adley: Was it not the fact that at that time the Conservative Government took the much more realistic view that they should go to the country on their incomes policy? The present Government now find that their social contract no longer exists, as has been admitted by the Prime Minister, they have lost

their majority in Parliament, but they still refuse a General Election?

Mr. Montgomery: The Lib-Lab Pact came into being on 23rd March this year. Knowing the fanatical desire of the Liberal Party for some form of proportional representation, I was amazed that this was not one of the conditions of the Lib-Lab Pact. It tends to prove that the Liberals wanted the pact even more desperately than the Labour Government. I am a little cynical about the Liberals new-found enthusiasm for proportional representation.

Mr. Beith: New-found?

Mr. Montgomery: Yes, new-found. It has not been on the go for very long. In the early part of this century, when the Liberals were one of the great parties in this country, the electoral system suited them perfectly, and the people who were squeezed out were members of the fledgling Labour Party, then a new party. The Liberals at that time had no desire to change the electoral system because the first-past-the-post system suited them well. I am not impressed by the arguments now deployed by the Liberals for a change in the electoral system.

Mr. Beith: Since the hon. Gentleman appears to support his hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Mr. Morrison), does he not appreciate that his hon. Friend is strongly in favour of proportional representation?

Mr. Montgomery: I respect my hon. Friend's views, although I do not happen to agree with him on that point. I am saying that this is something the Liberals have dreamed up because they find that the system does not work as well as they expected. But the system suited them at the time. They had the power to change it, if they had wished, but they did nothing about it.

Mr. Hooson: Mr. Hooson rose—

Mr. Montgomery: I have already given way a great deal.

Mr. Hooson: I gave way a great deal, too.

Mr. Montgomery: I agree that the hon. and learned Gentleman gave way in his speech. I hope that he will re-read his


speech tomorrow in Hansard, if he can bear it.
What benefits accrue to the Liberals from the Lib-Lab Pact? I suggest very few—apart from the fact that there are still 13 Liberal Members, whereas a General Election in the spring, at the time of the pact, would have all but obliterated them. My hon. Friend the Member for Devizes read out a list of the Liberals who would have disappeared if we had had a General Election earlier this year.

Mr. Charles Morrison: Let me correct my hon. Friend. I was suggesting what would happen if we had a General Election based on the Saffron Walden result, in which the Liberals claim to have done very well.

Mr. Montgomery: It boils down to the same thing—namely, that a large number of Liberals would have disappeared.
What about the legislation enacted by this Government which was bitterly opposed by the Liberal Party at the time? There was, for example, the Community Land Act.

Mr. Beith: Will the Tories repeal it?

Mr. Montgomery: Yes, we shall.
Then there was the Aircraft and Shipbuilding Industries Act and the Act to remove the penalties on the Clay Cross councillors—legislation about which Liberals felt strongly at the time. Was there any move to amend or repeal any of that legislation when the pact was being drawn up between the Liberal Leader and the Prime Minister? Certainly at the time those Acts were going through Parliament they were regarded as anathema to the Liberal conscience—or could it be that there is no longer a Liberal conscience and that self-preservation is the name of the game'?
What makes this pact even more suspect is the list of proposals put by the Liberal Leader to the Prime Minister at the end of June. So many of these proposals are so similar to Conservative policy that one suspects that the Liberal Leader must be suffering a terrible confusion of the mind.
Let me cite a few of the proposals. First, there was the request for tax reforms, with cuts in income tax and a switch to indirect taxation. That pro-

posal was very much in line with Conservative policy. Then there were the proposals on housing, with Liberal demands for the reform of the Rent Acts, the derestriction of furnished property and grants for first-time house purchasers. That again was very much in line with Conservative policy.
There was also the Liberal insistence on no more defence cuts and no more nationalisation. That will bring no joy to Labour Left-wingers. The report in today's Daily Telegraph shows how far in terms of defence cuts are the Liberals from certain members of the National Executive of the Labour Party. The Liberal plea for no more defence cuts has fallen on deaf ears because an influential committee of the Labour Party advocates that defence costs could be cut by 28 per cent.—and this despite the fact that many people feel that expenditure on defence has already been cut to a dangerous level.
Perhaps the Liberal's main hopes are that the Government will ensure that direct elections to the European Parliament will take place. The Prime Minister has already promised to use his best endeavours—and we all know what that means. He seems to use his best endeavours on every issue that arises. Last week the Prime Minister nut the survival of his Government above all else, and we saw the doctrine of collective Cabinet irresponsibility. On a Government Bill, on which the Liberal Party felt particularly strongly, we saw six Cabinet Ministers being allowed by the Prime Minister to vote against their Government. Obviously, the Prime Minister's best endeavours did not cut much ice with his six Cabinet colleagues—or perhaps the six rebel Cabinet Ministers are not so naive as is the Leader of the Liberal Party. Perhaps "naive" is the best word to use to describe the Liberal Leader. He seems to be unaware that the Labour Party will keep the pact going for as long as it suits it, and when it ceases to suit Labour, the Liberals will be dropped.
I cannot believe that if the Liberals had been led by either the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) or the right hon. Member for Devon, North (Mr. Thorpe) this pact would ever have seen the light of day. The present Leader of the Liberal Party


when he took over was hailed as the new saviour of the Liberals. Instead, he has betrayed them.
In my constituency there is a substantial Liberal vote—or there was. In the General Election in February 1974 the Liberal candidate took second place. In October 1974 the Liberal candidate dropped to third place. Following the county council elections of May 1973 there were two Liberals, one Labour and one Conservative on the Greater Manchester Council. Following the elections in May this year there are now four Conservatives. Having canvassed in the area, I recognise the danger signals for the Liberal Party. People told me on their doorsteps that they did not support the Liberals any more because they regarded a vote for a Liberal as a vote to keep the Socialist Government in power.
I believe that the pact has delayed a General Election. A discredited Socialist Government has been maintained in power, and the Liberal Party has a great deal to answer for. When the General Election takes place, as soon it must, I hope that the electors will give their verdict on the people who have damaged the cause of liberalism. The Liberals have kept this Government in power for much longer than would otherwise have been the case.

5.19 p.m.

Mr. Ioan Evans: The purpose of the motion introduced by the hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Morrison) was presumably to try to woo the Liberals—in other words, to encourage them to turn to the Tory Party. In these circumstances perhaps I should not intervene in this debate. Perhaps my right hon. Friend the Member for Fulham (Mr. Stewart), who made an excellent contribution to the debate, and I should just stand back and allow the Tory onslaught on the Liberals to take place in an untramelled way. We have today seen a concerted Conservative attack en the Liberal Party.
Apparently the hon. Member for Devizes does not disagree with pacts. He thinks that political pacts could be a good thing. Apparently he is against the thought of the Liberals having a pact with a party other than the Conservative Party. Of course, the Conservatives cannot be critical of pacts. We all know what happened in 1974. The

then Leader of the Conservative Party, the right hon. Member for Sidcup (Mr. Heath), was seeking a pact with the Liberals. Presumably the Conservatives are not against pacts in theory. If we are to talk about theoretical pacts, is there any greater merit in having a pact immediately following an election in which one's party has been defeated?
Conservative Members might think that there was virtue in the right hon. Member for Sidcup going to the country in 1974. What were the circumstances? The country was on the verge of collapse. We were approaching the most difficult economic situation that the country had ever seen. We were going through a serious economic crisis. The opinion polls encouraged the Conservative Party to go to the country. Conservatives stirred up a campaign against the trade union movement as they thought it would give them a bonus, just as they are stirring up the Grunwick issue. They think that it will be a bonus for them if they do so. In 1974 they stirred up the miners' issue. They seized the opportunity because they thought that it would help them to achieve an increased majority.
What happened in the 1974 election? The Conservative Party was rejected and the Labour Party came into power. But the Conservative Party sought to get a pact to maintain the majority that it had had before the election. The Liberals were not prepared to enter into a pact with the Conservatives, and the Labour Party was called upon to form a government. At that time we were without a majority. We recognised that we had to tackle the serious economic problems that the Tory Party had left behind after their years of power from 1970 to 1974. Therefore, we had to get an increased majority. We went back to the country in October 1974 and we were given an increased majority. We then had an overall majority. When the Labour Party feels that it is in the interests of the country that it should risk being defeated by going to the country, it is prepared to take that course. That is what it did in October 1974.

Mr. Fairbairn: I know that the hon. Gentleman's nationality compels him to run on, but in a passage further back he suggested that Conservative hon.


Members have been trying to make something out of the Grunwick dispute. Surely he will remember that the Prime Minister asked politicians not to jump on the bandwaggon. Perhaps it would have been better if today's march had not been led by two Government Whips.

Mr. Evans: The hon. Gentleman talks about bandwaggons. If Opposition hon. Members were not riding into the factory in buses, it might be better for all concerned. It might be better if at least one Conservative hon. Member was not the main political adviser to the owner of the factory. Although it is said that the factory wants to recognise trade unionists and trade unions, the advice of the hon. Member for Hendon, North (Mr. Gorst) to the owner of the factory is not to recognise trade unions. I should welcome a Member of the Opposition Front Bench taking the opportunity on behalf of his party to dissociate itself from the political advice that has been given by the hon. Gentleman. I believe that there is a deliberate attempt by the hon. Gentleman and the various organisations with which he is associated to stir up the Grunwick dispute. If anything serious happens at the factory gates, it will be the hon. Gentleman and those with him who will bear some responsibility for what is happening.
I was saying that in 1974 the Labour Party was returned to power. The question now is whether we should have a General Election.

Mr. Tebbit: What a splendid idea.

Mr. Evans: Last week a motion of censure was tabled by the nationalists. They wanted a General Election. At least, they said that last Monday. I do not know whether they have reviewed their policy since then. The Tories were prepared to go into the nationalist Lobby. Of course, the nationalists believe in independence. They want to break up the United Kingdom, which, apparently, would be against the interests of the Tory Party. But that did not prevent the Tories from following behind the nationalists on a three-line whip, although they are demanding independence.
The Conservative Party wants a General Election and we are in a midterm Parliament. As it is wrong to

change horses in mid-stream, it would be wrong now to have a change of Government in a mid-term Parliament. It is no use Opposition hon. Members quoting by-election results. Such results in midterm Parliaments follow a pattern. It is all very well Conservative hon. Members chiding the Liberals about Saffron Walden. The Liberals could have mentioned Orpington and many of the other victories that they have had when a Tory Government have been in office. At the time of the Orpington victory I am sure that it was not said by the Conservative Government "We have lost Orpington so we must have a General Election."

Mr. John Lee: My memory may be faulty but I do not recollect any decision on the part of the Conservatives to press their leader to resign after the Bromsgrove by-election, which they lost in 1971 with a particularly massive swing.

Mr. Evans: That is so.
In this debate we are talking not about the interest of the country but about the pure political interest, as it sees it, of the Tory Party. However, I think that it is questionable; if there were a General Election in a month's time, I am not sure that a Tory Government would be returned.

Mr. Montgomery: Then let us have an election.

Mr. Evans: The hon. Gentleman knows that the longer we stay in power the less chance his party has of forming another Government. When we came into power we put the situation to the people very clearly. Reference has been made to the Tory and Liberal manifestos but in our October 1974 manifesto we stated:
Britain faces its most dangerous crisis since the war. The Labour Party makes no attempt to disguise this.
We then said:
We want to be frank with you. The regeneration of our economy isn't going to be easy, even with a Labour Government. The next two or three years are going to he difficult for us all.
We said that there would be no easy times, and we have not had easy times during the past two or three years. Sacrifices have had to be made by the people. The difference is that we are not running away as the Conservatives ran away in 1974.

Mr. Montgomery: How did we run away?

Mr. Evans: I have already explained to the hon. Gentleman that in 1974 the Conservatives thought that they would win the General Election. The people were not kidded, however, by their anti-trade union campaign. They rejected the way in which they seized upon the miners. The policies of the Tory Party were rejected.
What has happened in the past two or three years? We have called upon the people to make sacrifices but the economic indicators are showing that great improvements have been made.

Mr. Fairbairn: In unemployment?

Mr. Evans: Our reserves have risen to a record level. Confidence in sterling has greatly improved. There were times during the past difficult three years when hardly a week passed without the Leader of the Opposition or a leading Opposition spokesman demanding a statement on sterling. Perhaps they thought that they were helping the situation. That is what happened when sterling was going through a difficult period.

Mr. Fairbairn: It still is.

Mr. Evans: That is the patriotism that we get from Conservative Members. They have not been doing that in recent weeks and months. The situation has greatly improved in that time.
The Government by their policies, have reduced interest rates from 15 per cent. to 8 per cent. That will obviously encourage manufacturing investment. The rate is now lower than when the Conservatives were in power. We have had difficulties in recent years. We have been chided by the Conservative Party. We do not get their spokesman congratulating the Government on having brought down interest rates from 15 per cent. to 8 per cent.
When the Conservative Party was in power, there was confrontation with the trade union movement. We have had increasing co-operation from the trade union movement. Despite, attacks made by the Conservative Party, leaders of major trade unions have been willing to pursue unpopular policies in the interests of the country. They have put the country

first. They have told their members to restrain their wage demands.
We have brought about a transformation on the balance of payments. The hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson) said that in 1970, when the Labour Party left office, what had previously been a deficit had been turned into a surplus and that, in four years, the Tory Government transformed it back into a severe deficit.
What has happened in the last three or four years? The current account surplus of £126 million has been brought about in the three months to April 1977. That is the first such surplus since early 1972. There are now predictions that, if we keep on course, there will be a substantial surplus in 1978. That will be a great transformation from the situation left by the Tories in 1974.

Mr. Charles Morrison: The hon. Gentleman has listed a number of items that he claims as the achievements of the Labour Government. Personally, I do not agree with his contention that they are achievements. But, assuming that they are, he is able to enumerate those items now only by courtesy of the Lib-Lab Pact. What concession will the Government make to the Liberal Party when we have another election?

Mr. Evans: The hon. Gentleman earlier said that he was not against political pacts. Personally I do not like political pacts. The Tories, in their own party interests want an election now. The hon. Member for Devizes, in his motion, states:
That this House welcomes the new-found acceptance by the Leader of the Liberal Party of so many of the policies set out in 'The Right Approach', but deplores his refusal to take the political action to secure their implementation.
By that he means implementation of the policies set out in the Tory manifesto. I hardly think that will persuade the Liberals to join the Tories on this issue. Yet that is the argument that they are putting forward.
The Liberals are free agents in this matter. Between now and 1979 there will be a General Election. The Liberals will then no doubt review the situation and decide whether their arrangement with the Labour Party should or should not be continued. They will review the situation


at the end of this Session anyway. The hon. Member for Devizes suggests that it is in the interests of the Liberal Party that there be a General Election now. But when he and his colleagues are saying "But of course, if there were an election, there would be fewer Liberal Members", I do not see how that will persuade the Liberal Party to join them in wanting a General Election.
We have made many improvements in three years. It would be wrong to have a General Election now because some of the Government's policies are still working through. There is our policy on North Sea oil and the benefits that will flow from that. As I have said before in the House, the Opposition have not hesitated to try to gain kudos out of the fact that the price of imported oil has gone up by 400 per cent. since the Labour Government have been in power. That has had a serious effect on the balance of payments. However, we have begun to overcome those difficulties. The oil and gas are flowing in from the North Sea. They are publicly-owned assets, and they will bring great benefit to the country. The Opposition want a General Election before the full benefits flow. They are justified in making such a demand because of their party interest.
What is the situation in the country? The hon. and learned Member for Montgomery pointed to the fact that when there was the rumour of a General Election, overnight £1,000 million was written off share prices on the Stock Exchange. Therefore, the City is not too keen to have a Tory Government. That is not because it sees the Labour Party taking a more kind-hearted view of its activities than the Tory Party, but because a General Election would create a politically chaotic situation.
What would happen if there were a General Election now with a similar result to the last one? Presumably, if there is opposition by Tory Members to a pact with the Liberal Party, the Tory Party would not seek such a pact, and there would be a political stalemate.
The Labour Party put its manifesto before the country in 1974. The Government are tackling our economic difficulties and have carried out a large part of their legislative programme. I am not

particularly anxious about the legislation on direct elections to the European Assembly or on devolution. The basic social legislation has been put on the statute book and is of great benefit to the country.
It would not be a bad thing for the House to have a quiet legislative period. The Government have already made announcements about what is likely to be in the Queen's Speech. Everybody knows that the next General Election will come before 1979. I suggest that not only the Liberal Party, but other minor parties, do not wish to have a General Election at this time. Only the Tory Party appears to be keen on an election. That is because it feels that the longer the Government stay in power and people begin to realise that they will soon benefit from the Government's policies, the less chance it will have of getting back into power.
I believe that the country wants a General Election like a goldfish wants a bicycle. It is the wrong kind of vehicle. It will not meet the needs of the people. The country does not want a Tory Government and it does not want a General Election. Therefore, I hope that the motion will be defeated.
It is up to the Liberal Party to decide whether it wants an agreement with anyone. It will not be in the interests of the Liberal Party to have a Tory Government returned—a Tory Government led not by a moderate such as the right hon. Member for Sidcup, but by a Right-wing extreme Tory advised by an increasing number of Right-wingers on the Opposition Front Bench. One can see the way that the more moderate, rational elements in the Tory Party are being thrown aside. I am not referring to the hon. Members for Cleveland and Whitby (Mr. Brittan) and Ealing, Acton (Sir G. Young) who are sitting there at the moment. Generally speaking, those who sit alongside the Leader of the Opposition are members of the extreme right wing of the party. It would be disastrous for the country to have a Tory Government led by the present Leader of the Opposition.
We do not need a General Election now. The Government command a majority in the House. We must begin


to distribute to the people the fruits of the labours which they have contributed. I believe that at the next election the Labour Party will be returned with a majority to form a Government.

5.40 p.m.

Mr. Robert Adley: The fruits of the Labour Government to which the hon. Member for Aberdare (Mr. Evans) referred are already being enjoyed by the unemployed youngsters and the housewives who are paying a record price for food. The people are well aware of what the present Government have done for them. The hon. Member appears to think that everyone is happy. He has no doubt that his party would be returned by a smashing victory at a General Election. If that were so, we know that the Lib-Lab Pact would not exist and that the Labour Party would be going hell for leather for an election to return a Labour Government to Westminster.
I am sorry that the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson), who spoke on behalf of the Liberal Party, has left the Chamber. I hope that the two Members of the Liberal Party who are here will not take it amiss if I say how nice it would be, for once in a while, if a Liberal speaker had the courtesy to stay in the House during the debate, as do Government Ministers. That would be an agreeable change.
The hon. and learned Member for Montgomery made a number of extravagant claims in justification of the Lib-Lab Pact. He implied that the Labour Government today are rather different and less disagreeable animals from those that they were two or three years ago. That is at variance with what the Leader of the Liberal Party said, as reported in The Tines as recently as 18th June. He said:
Instead of staying to fight, David Marquand goes off to Europe, John Mackintosh to a chair at Edinburgh University, and now Brian Walden to a chair at London Weekend Television. A Labour Party unable fully to use the services of men like these is becoming a very different political animal internally from the party of Gaitskell.
I am not sure what conclusion we should draw, but the inference is that the Labour Party is a much less moderate and less attractive animal than it was when the three people mentioned

in that quotation were members of the Parliamentary Labour Party. If that is so, it makes a nonsense of what the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery said.
We are discussing the continuation in office of the present Government. The recently announced break-up of the United Ulster Unionists is also a relevant factor in enabling the Government to remain in office. That is as relevant as the support of the Liberal Party. I do not understand why the media go for the obvious and fail to look at the less obvious but equally relevant factors. The recent events in Belfast are as significant as the Lib-Lab Pact in enabling the Prime Minister to secure continuity of his life in office.
The Lib-Lab Pact is an arrangement of intellectuals, by intellectuals, for intellectuals. It is also an act of self-preservation. The Saffron Walden by-election increases the need of both the Labour and Liberal Parties to keep the pact going.
The combined Lib-Lab vote between the October 1974 General Election and the Saffron Walden by-election fell by 11,219 while the Conservative vote rose, on a reduced poll, by 1,401 votes. If the by-election means anything, it means the rejection of the pact by the voters, but simultaneously it means its increased attraction to the two parties in the House. That is an unhappy situation because it means that both the Labour and Liberal Parties are only too delighted to have an opportunity to fly in the face of the wishes of the electorate and to remain in office in contradiction to the express wish of voters as shown in successive by-elections.
All those who have studied the Parliamentary Liberal Party know that it depends for its survival on attracting Labour votes. In the Cornwall, North constituency, the Labour vote has been eroded to 6·4 per cent. In the Isle of Wight it is 13 per cent., in Berwick-upon-Tweed 14 per cent., Devon, North 14·2 per cent. and even in the constituency of the Leader of the Liberal Party the Labour vote is 8·9 per cent.
In order to retain their seats Liberal Members have to do everything that they can to persuade Labour voters in their constituencies to vote Liberal to keep out the Tories. I am not justifying the


situation. I am explaining it. I have not heard a Member of the Liberal Party give that as a reason for retaining the pact.

Mr. Fairbairn: One could turn the argument round the other way. If one takes the constituency of the Leader of the Liberal Party one finds that 92 per cent. of the electorate voted not to have a Labour Government.

Mr. Adley: I am grateful to my hon. and learned Friend. That is the sort of mathematics that appeals to him.
The Saffron Walden result is, in its way, a major triumph for the Liberal Party. Looked at in the light of Stechford, Ashfield, Workington and Walsall, North it is a triumph because the Liberal Party managed not to lose its deposit.
There is a sea-change in the country. It is not a coincidence that the Conservative Party won those four seats. People have come to realise that Socialism means unemployment, an increased cost of living and a reduced standard of living. One would have thought that that would have registered with the Liberal Party, but apparently it has not.
I shall use a football analogy. The Liberal Party has through Saffron Walden avoided having to apply for re-election. One could take that analogy a little further. Does the hon. Member for Aberdare recall Ipswich Town winning election to the First Division? This unfashionable East Anglian side reached the First Division for the first time and had to play football against all the good, experienced teams. One read about the elegant, suave, polished Manchester United players playing superb football against country bumpkins. But the result was Manchester United nil, Ipswich six.
The same sort of thing happens when hon. Members insult my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition. They are desperately out of touch with the views of millions who believe that my right hon. Friend speaks the same language as they do and that the strutting peacocks—the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer, aided and abetted by their sidekicks on the Liberal Benches—are strutting towards the edge of a precipice which will be reached when we have the next General

Election. My right hon. Friend speaks more common sense in a week than hon. Members of the Liberal Party and the Prime Minister speak in a parliamentary year.
Nothing can illustrate that better than the Bidwell affair. The Prime Minister sniggered, sneered and derided my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition when she asked him to deny the speech made by one of his colleagues who found that he was happy to be in alliance with the views of the Communist Party. Millions of people are concerned that the former chairman of the Tribune Group is able and happy to say that he is in full agreement with the Communist Party and yet the Prime Minister does nothing about it.
I turn back immediately to the Lib-Lab Pact. One of the claims that the Liberals have made is that they have managed to save the country from more nationalisation. We hear them claiming that, because of the pact, the nationalisation of banks and insurance companies has been averted. Perhaps the Minister will be able to give me an exact date, but we know that the Prime Minister, the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster have now for at least a year, well before the birth of the pact, been saying that the present Labour Government had no intention of nationalising the banks and the insurance companies. That is one of the many spurious claims in justification for the pact.
My hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale (Mr. Montgomery) referred to the situation over the European vote. I agree with him. I thought that the Liberals were so easily pleased as to be quite ridiculous in claiming that their achievements over Europe had had any influence on the Government. We had a free vote in the Cabinet and indiscipline amongst Ministers and even, I believe, a minority of the Parliamentary Labour Party supporting the Bill on direct elections, yet still the Liberal Party is happy with what it claims is the Prime Minister's efforts to satisfy it that he will use his best endeavours to get the Bill on the statute book. I just wonder what the Prime Minister's second best endeavours will be if what we have seen so far are his best endeavours.
I should have thought that if the Liberals claimed to be the European party and that this was their priority and a true claim, they would realise that on this issue they could have formed a powerful phalanx with the Conservative Party and the pro-Europeans in the Labour Party to ensure that the legislation was pushed through at the earliest opportunity.

Mr. Beith: That is an interesting possibility. Can the hon. Gentleman give me any undertaking that the Bill would have contained proportional representation if we had done so?

Mr. Adley: I cannot. The hon. Gentleman must realise that I am not the Leader of the Opposition. If he had asked that question of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition before doing his deal with the Labour Party, he might well have got a very satisfactory answer, but I cannot answer the question for him. Perhaps he will say whether there was any consultation over this matter. I presume, from his remaining in his seat, that there was not. But we know perfectly well that Mr. Peter Hain and his friends would never allow the Parliamentary Liberal Party to form any sort of alliance with the Conservative Party.
I want to ask the Liberal Party some questions. Where do the Liberals think the pact is leading them? Do they believe that their Leader can stand up to the Prime Minister when it comes to trading-off deals? I believe that the Prime Minister has forgotten more about political deals in his 31 years in this House than the Leader of the Liberal Party will ever know. However, let us look to see what will happen.
What is the purpose of the pact? Presumably, for the Liberals it is to sustain the present Government in office until, as the Liberals hope, a miracle occurs and at a General Election the Liberal Party is returned instead of the Labour Party. But what will happen if the Labour Party wins the next General Election? The Prime Minister would be entering a Parliament in which he would be over 70 years old were it to run its course. No doubt during the course of that Parliament the Labour Party would have to decide to elect a new leader. Just who would become the leader after the present Prime Minister?
What on earth would the Liberals think if, as a result of their achievement —as they would claim—in sustaining a Labour Government through to the next General Election and a Labour victory, the right hon. Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn) were to finish as Leader of the Labour Party? Do the Liberals think that their leader would be invited to attend meetings of the Labour Party to choose its next leader? Of course not. However, that is the serious possibility.
The Liberals have not thought this thing through. This pact is a pact for today, to avoid at any cost a General Election.
The hon. and learned Member for Montgomery—we welcome him back to the Chamber—tried, as it was obvious that he would try, to paint the Conservative Party as a wild party of the Right. Perhaps he is rather disappointed that we have had somewhat moderate speeches from the Conservative Benches this afternoon. The extremists in British politics are surely the Communist Party or the Socialist Workers Party on the Left, and the National Party or the National Front on the Right. It is nonsense for the Liberal Party to try to pretend that because the Tribune Group is opposed to the pact, on the one hand, and a number of Conservatives are opposed to it, on the other hand, this is somehow an alliance of political extremists.
The danger for the Liberals is that they will finish believing their own slogans. I advise them strongly against that. They will be approaching the next General Election with their support for the present Government firmly stuck around their necks. I regret very much that the pact has been of so little influence that the Liberal Party was not even able to prevent the nationalisation of the aircraft industry, even though the pact came about before vesting day for that industry. Perhaps that is an illustration of what a wishy-washy affair the pact in fact is.
Finally, I turn briefly to the situation in my own constituency. A man who, until recently, was the chairman of the Christchurch and Lymington Liberal Party was very offended at being described as a "Lib-Lab". He was so offended that he wrote to my constituency office and threatened to take out a writ


for defamation unless he received an immediate apology. I wrote to the Leader of the Liberal Party and asked whether it was the policy of his party to encourage its local organisations to issue writs for defamation if any of its local spokesmen were described as "Lib-Labs". The Leader of the Liberal Party wrote back and said that this was not part of the policy of the party's central organisation at all.
Much to my disappointment, we are still awaiting this writ. Perhaps the opportunity of this debate may give the gentleman concerned an incentive to issue his writ. He has now been removed from the chairmanship of the local Liberal Party, I am sad to say. He has been replaced by a lady, who wrote to the Lymington Times saying that it was disgraceful to suggest that Mr. Huish, the former chairman, was anything other than a good Liberal, and that he had always been a Liberal and, therefore, naturally, he was feeling hurt and insulted at being so described.
However, what the lady did not know, perhaps, and what Mr. Huish had apparently forgotten, was that in 1972 the aforementioned Mr. Huish applied for membership of the New Milton Conservative Club, signing the pledge that he was a member of the Conservative Party. None the less, we still await the writ. One knows not when it may come.
The pact has been put forward as being in the national interest, but it is nothing of the sort. It is merely an operation of self-interest on the part of the Liberal Party and the Labour Party.

Mr. Fairbairn: Does my hon. Friend remember the words of Lloyd George describing the last time the Liberal Party was idiot enough to hook up to the Labour Party, when he said that the Liberal Party would have to be the oxen to draw the cart of Socialism across the stony road of Parliament for two or three years and that at the end of it they would be slaughtered?

Mr. Adley: He was prophetic. I suspect that that is precisely what will happen.
My final point is that the Liberal Party has put the two cornerstones of the pact as the Government's European policy and

the continuation of the social contract. The present Government were elected in February 1974 solely on the basis of their alleged ability to contain inflation through voluntary agreement with the trade unions. By October 1974 the present Chancellor of the Exchequer was claiming that he had got inflation down to 8·4 per cent. It then raged up to about 30 per cent. Now the Labour Party and the Government are claiming a great victory because they have managed to get inflation down to the point at which it is only double what it was at the time of the last General Election. In addition, the social contract, on the admission of the Prime Minister, is now finished.
I ask the Liberal Party: what can it claim as its justification for continuing with this pact other than that it is in its own self-interest to avoid a further General Election? I believe that this Government should go. I believe that the Liberal Party, if it had any guts and self-respect, would help that process rather than hinder it, and thus put the nation out of its misery.

6.0 p.m.

Mr. John Lee: Despite the jollity of the hon. Member for Christchurch and Lymington (Mr. Adley) it has not been easy for him to conceal the sour grapes which he obviously feels about the present situation. His remarks about the Liberal Party have to be set in context. I hold no brief for that party, but there are those of us who can remember the times when, year after year, the electorate was defrauded by people who put themselves up as Liberal-Nationals and Conservative Liberals and Liberal-Conservatives. These people aimed at deluding the more naïve members of the electorate into believing that they were voting Liberal when in fact they were voting Conservative. If the Liberal Party gets a little benefit out of this present arrangement, I feel that it is getting a reward for that period while the Conservatives are suffering a nemesis for their behaviour in former years.
Pacts of this kind are not as novel as some Tory Members have suggested. One of the few sensible things which Ramsay MacDonald ever did was to form a pact with Herbert Gladstone in the early years of this century. That helped the Parliamentary Labour Party on its way. Some Members of the Liberal Party may regret


that now. Many of us are much obliged to Ramsay MacDonald and Herbert Gladstone.
Perhaps more pertinent to this debate, with its screams of pain from the Conservative Party about the present arrangement, would be a reminder of those little incidents in Bolton and Huddersfield where there were Liberal-Conservative pacts, and the Dundee pact although no one won any seats from that because the electors of Dundee were too sensible to take any notice. The other two pacts helped to provide one or two seats for the Conservative and Liberal Parties. Thus, the situation is not all that new.
On a rather larger scale—although they certainly did not need it for numerical purposes, having, in the first instance, a rather large parliamentary majority anyway—the Conservatives went into coalition with the genuine Liberals, not the Liberal-Nationals, in the period 1931–32, a period which did not distinguish either of those parties by the excellence of government. Many of us would regard it as possibly one of the worst periods of that ignominious inter-war period of government. I have heard a reference to Herbert Samuel's coalition with the Conservatives at the time. Let us not have any humbug about this. We know that the Conservatives do not like this situation because it is denying them the opportunity, as they think, of bringing about a General Election. We are all party politicians, we are all subjective about this and look for party advantage, but there are other factors involved.
There is something else which is worth mentioning. That is that there has been a tendency in recent years for elections to take place with ever greater frequency. I do not believe that this is a good thing, whoever wins them. It is difficult enough for there to be economic planning over the prescribed period of a Parliament. No Government can look forward beyond a period of more than five years. Yet such are the demands of modern economic strategy that, if anything, that is an inadequate period. It is worth remembering that in the past 13 years there have already been five General Elections. Yet, if all of those Parliaments had gone their full length, they would have spanned a period of almost 25 years.
Let us get out of our minds the idea that this is a stale Parliament, that the electorate has not been consulted for a long time and that there is no reason why the Government should stay on. The fact is that any Government are entitled to carry out their mandate in going right to the full length of their time.
Let us not forget that the Conservative Government in 1959 went almost to the stage of Parliament becoming an unlawful assembly. I am not quite sure which date it was that that Parliament would have expired if Lord Home of the Hirsel —he has changed his name so many times I have almost forgotten it had not decided to go to the Queen in the autumn of 1964. No one would have said, certainly no Tory Member, that it was unconstitutional for Lord Home to do this, notwithstanding the fact that the electorate had grown manifestly tired of the Government which had been punctuated with explosions, spy scandals, the Profumo affair, the collapse of Macmillan's economic policies and a whole series of by-election casualties, in many ways as spectacular as those sustained by the Labour Party in the past few months.
Let us not have any high-flown constitutional arguments advanced on that score. While we have our current parliamentary system the Prime Minister has the prerogative of determining the length of the life of a Parliament. Not many people have advanced arguments in favour of a fixed period of time for a Parliament. No one has advanced the argument that we should have an entrenched clause in the constitution ensuring that Parliament is dissolved in any other way. Certainly no Conservative leader in recent times, with the single exception of the hapless right hon. Member for Sidcup (Mr. Heath) has failed to exploit the situation and the prerogative powers vested in him, using them for his own advantage. The right hon. Member for Sidcup thought that he was using those powers to his own advantage but succeeded in pulling down the house about his head. That is one of the many reasons why Conservatives are so sour about this.
In addition to the arguments made by my right hon. and hon. Friends, particularly by my right hon. Friend the Member for Fulham (Mr. Stewart), who dealt


with the point in his usual skilful and urbane way, there is one other serious reason why an early General Election should not take place. I am sorry that the nationalists are not here because I do not like attacking them in their absence, particularly as I happen to like many of them personally. Whatever an early General Election produced in terms of a Government, I do not regard it as by any means certain that the Conservatives would get a majority; I do regard it as certain that there would be a considerable and disturbing increase in nationalist representation. There are two reasons for this.
The first is that the economic condition of the country is far from satisfactory. None of us would pretend otherwise. The second reason is that the nationalists at the moment have an additional dissatisfaction—and I know that some of my hon. Friends will not agree with me—in that the devolution legislation has yet to be passed. If this Parliament continues, I believe that we shall have a modified devolution Bill, which will pass into law. If this happens, and I am not widly enthusiastic about it, it is at least reasonable to suppose that by 1979 the nationalist tide may be on the ebb.
We may not then be faced with a situation that is so dangerous for the constitution. I would have thought that the more sensible Conservative Members would not relish a Government surrounded by a lot of nationalist Members on the rampage. That is, at least, a possibility. In the present climate of opinon in Scotland it is obvious that the nationalists would do well. I cannot think that that would make for stability of Government, quite apart from the other arguments my hon. Friends have advanced.
When the Conservatives say that we are unfair to them in prophesying that a Conservative Government would involve themselves in a head-on collision with the unions I pose this question: where among their ranks is there anyone of the stature of Walter Monckton? There is no one who comes anywhere near that. That is true even if the Conservatives were to choose people less lunatic than those who seem to surround the Leader of the Opposition at the moment. I do not say that the right

hon. Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Prior) is one of the worst Tory Members, but I do say that the situation is soured so much that if he became Secretary of State for Employment, while he might do his best, he would not be able to cope. I am certain that the Leader of the Opposition would make things worse were she to become Prime Minister.

6.10 p.m.

Mr. Leon Brittan: I wish first to express the thanks of everyone on this side of the House to my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Mr. Morrison) for raising this subject for debate today. We are all much indebted to him.
Reference has inevitably been made to the Saffron Walden by-election. It seems to me that this provides a lesson for the Government at least as much as it does for the Liberal Party. The Prime Minister may be able to talk his way out of an election, but the Saffron Walden by-election shows that he certainly cannot talk the country into economic success. No amount of dangerously complacent speeches about economic indicators pointing in the right direction will deceive people into believing that they are better off than is really the case.
Prime Ministers who make speeches of that kind days before the trade union movement inflicts a devastating blow on their Government not only emerge with electoral egg on their faces, as they did at Saffron Walden; they also lose all their remaining credibility in terms of economic policy.
If the Liberals can derive consolation from Saffron Walden, good luck to them. They may have persuaded some dissatisfied Labour voters that the ark of the Social covenant is safe in Liberal hands. But if, after all the blaze of publicity that they have attracted in recent months, and with a candidate who had an invariably favourable Press, their share of the vote goes down as it did at Saffron Walden, it can hardly be treated as an electoral imprimatur for the Liberal-Labour pact.
The purpose of this debate is to look at that pact and to see whether the avowed aims of the Liberal Party fit in with the pact as it has been practised and with its forthcoming renewal. My hon. Friend the Member for Devizes


has shown that the policies put forward by the Liberal Party in its latest demands are in great part to be found in the Conservative policy document. The response of the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson) to that is to say "While the policies may be all right, one cannot be sure that they will be implemented". All I can say in reply to that feeble retort is that at least we are committed to implementing them, whereas the hon. and learned Gentleman must know that there is not the faintest chance of the Labour Party, with which he is allied, even expressing any desire to implement them.
Yet the Liberal Party is perpetuating the Labour Government in office, and here lies the central paradox—that a party which, even when it puts forward its formulations for the next phase, is closer to the Conservative Party than to the Labour Party, is none the less seeking its fortune with the Labour Party. That is what is puzzling so many millions of Liberal voters.
I am not suggesting, and neither did my hon. Friend, that the idea of a pact or coalition is itself in any way immoral or improper. Of course, nobody is suggesting that. There is nothing wrong with, and there is no reason to condemn, an agreement that is made for a reasonable purpose and has a reasonable chance of success, and which does not involve doing violence to one's own basic beliefs. In scrutinising the Liberal-Labour agreement, one should ask whether the pact comes within that definition.
Let us look at the origins and the stated purpose of the pact. When it came into existence on 23rd March 1977, the Prime Minister said that its purpose was to give the Government stability. He said:
They will give the Government the opportunity of maintaining a stable position while they carry through their economic and social policies.
The Leader of the Liberal Party deplored as one of the major causes of the British economic failure the lack of stable continuity. He, too, asked for stability, and said:
The basis on which I approached the Prime Minister related to whether there could be agreement between us for a period of stability.
What was to be the purpose of that period of stability? The purpose was essentially to secure progress on the economy and,

in particular, to secure agreement on phase 3 of a pay and prices policy. I quote the Leader of the Liberal Party again in the same speech:
We are coming up to a period—the Prime Minister stressed this in his speech—when in the national interest we must secure agreement on pay and price restraints."—[Official Report, 23rd March, 1977; Vol. 928, c. 1308–14.]
To the extent that the pact, when it was first announced, was received with a measure of sympathy by political and economic commentators, it was so received because it was regarded as providing an opportunity for the Labour Government to reach a phase 3 agreement which would provide the measure of stability to which both Liberal and Labour spokesmen referred.
Has the pact achieved that stability? Has it increased the likelihood of a pay policy? The answer is plainly that it has not.
Let us look first at the question of stability. Since the advent of the pact the Government have lived from hand to mouth, with endless speculation about the date of the next election, while the nation has been enjoying the profoundly unstable spectacle of the hon. Members for Rochdale (Mr. Smith) and for Cornwall, North (Mr. Pardoe) vying with each other for television time to see who can be ruder about the other's views—hardly a spectacle of stability.
Again on the question of stability, what about the episode of the petrol tax, when one of the Government's major measures in their Budget was rendered uncertain, when for weeks we did not know what the rate of tax would be and what the Government would do? Was that an achievement of stability?
Then, most recently, we had the votes on the Finance Bill, when the Conservative Party and some hon. Members on the Government side united to defeat the Government and dock £450 million off the money that they would otherwise have had. There may be arguments against doing that. We think that it was a profoundly right course to take. But one thing that it most certainly shows is that the advent of the Lib-Lab pact has not brought about a period of stability in our economic life.
If that is the position on stability, what about incomes policy? The Liberal Party has regarded this as crucial. It has


believed for some time in a statutory incomes policy and thought that even if the Labour Government would not introduce a statutory policy, at least their special relationship with the trade union movement would enable them to achieve for phase 3 a firm binding and specific agreement on the level of pay increases along the lines of phases 1 and 2.
What has come of all that? What has been the result of the pact for that central aim? The answer is that the policy is in shreds and tatters. The body blows were delivered last week by the miners' union and the Transport and General Workers' Union, and now the whole future of a deal of that kind looks very suspect. It is now clear that the very best that the Government can achieve is a pious statement hoping that there will be moderation in wage claims, and at the very least a commitment to the maintenance of the 12-month rule.
Whatever may happen to phase 3 of the incomes policy, phase 1 of the Lib-Lab pact has proved to be a very curious creature, a rather unattractive cross between a dead duck and a damp squib. At least, that is the position if one takes it at its face value if the reasons put forward for it at the time when it was introduced are taken seriously, it is merely to be denounced as a lamentable failure, but if one is a little more suspicious and a shade more cynical, one wonders how a party that accepts so much of what the Conservative Party wants to do, as my hon. Friend showed, can do a deal of this kind. Then of course it begins to look different. Then, instead of regarding it merely as a misjudgment, one wonders whether the claim by my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale (Mr. Montgomery) —that it is no more than a cynical agreement to keep the Government in office—is not right.
The Government's motives are obvious —they want to stay in power, as Governments usually do, and if they can persuade someone else to make that possible when they would otherwise have lost command of the majority of the House, that is attractive to them. It is equally plain that the Liberal Party, faced otherwise with the prospect of an election when they fear total disaster, found such an agreement convenient.
That seems the real story, and the high-faluting explanations about stability and assisting in the achievement of phase 3 of an incomes policy appear to be no more than a farrago of humbug, deluding no one—least of all those who perpetrated it.
That is no doubt a mischievously suspicious thought to cast upon a pact that was hailed in such high-flown constitutional terms and with such high economic hopes, but there are some uncomfortable indications that the more suspicious and cynical interpretation may be true. After all, why should a party which professes to believe in freedom for the individual and the small business man make it more likely that the next Government will be an extreme Left-wing one?
That is a relevant question, because it is obvious even to members of the Liberal Party that the Government would have been defeated without their support and that the Government are trying to cling on until North Sea oil wafts them to victory. The election then will be fought on a programme of unadulterated Socialism. There is no reason to expect the Labour Party to do anything else. If ever the pledges that will be made by the Labour Party were implemented, the Liberals would be left high and dry—no more than a satellite in times of adversity, to be cast aside as a useless and tiresome piece of flotsam as soon as the Government's prospects improve.
By lending themselves to this nonsense, the Liberals are not only keeping Labour in office now, for which they have put forward an explanation which wears increasingly thin but at least has some spurious substance; they are also greatly increasing the chance of returning the Government to effective and full-blooded Socialist power in future, because they are enabling the Labour Party to take a moment of their own choosing to return to power.
The Labour Party is perfectly entitled to do that, and if the Liberal Party is happy, we all know where we are. What is objectionable is not a deal between the two to keep Labour in power and to make more probable the return of a genuinely Socialist Government; the only thing that is genuinely objectionable is the humbug and hypocrisy behind the spurious explanations of a short-sighted and misguided political deal.
However, it may be said that perhaps, after having made the mistake and learned that stability was not to be achieved or an incomes policy attained, the Liberals will recognise the national interest and where their principles lead them when they consider renewing the pact. This debate is timely, because that moment is rapidly approaching. Faced with the failure of the pact over the last few months and applying the criteria laid down by its founders, what will the Liberal Party's attitude be in future—a Liberal Party that has the views that my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes has described? If the justification for the pact is to be more than mere cynical political opportunism, economic progress is central. The belief in a statutory incomes policy is a central Liberal view.
If the Liberal Party is to have any internal consistency it must require that the Labour Party produces for the next phase of the deal either a statutory incomes policy or at least a copper-bottomed guarantee in the form of an agreement with the trade union movement such as it achieved for phases 1 and 2. Without such an agreement, by the Liberals' own professed beliefs, there is no justification for maintaining the pact.
That appears to have been the view of Liberal spokesmen themselves. Last week, the hon. Member for Cornwall, North said, on Independent Radio News:
If the unions cannot deliver on phase 3, then the Government will have to step in with some statutory measures to ensure it. The Government has to hold the ring.
Asked whether the pact would be jettisoned if the Government failed to put in statutory terms, he said:
I think that that is now extremely likely. A complete disruption of phase 2 would lead to chaos and I do not intend
said he boldly,
to sit around being part of that chaos.
In case anyone thought that the statements of the hon. Member, who is known for his agreeable characteristic of being a little trigger-happy, did not represent the views of the party as a whole, he would have listened and watched spellbound when the Leader of the Liberal Party was asked on "Panorama" whether a proper pay policy was a pre-condition of Liberal support for the next round of the pact, and replied: "Yes, it is."
He was then asked:
Unless there is a phase 3 policy acceptable to you, the pact and the ten points become redundant?
He replied: "That is right." He said that the Liberal Party was not involved in the negotiations, and added:
It is for the Government to secure an agreement and for the rest of the country, including the Liberal Party, to judge whether it is watertight or, in the words of the Prime Minister, it is window dressing.
If the Liberal Party means what it says, it can enter into the new round of the pact only if we have such a pay policy.
It is becoming clear that there is no prospect of such a pay policy, for better or—as some Labour Members below the Gangway would say—for worse. But whatever the situation, that is what the Liberal Party believes in, and we shall judge, not only its wisdom but its honesty and good faith by the way in which it acts when the time comes to see whether such a policy will be implemented.

Mr. Penhaligon: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that all that matters in the end is not precisely what words any agreement might contain about phase 3 but whether it works? That is certainly the judgment that I shall make.

Mr. Brittan: I agree entirely. However, it is possible to have words that do not work, but there cannot be an agreement that works without the words. At the moment, it looks as if we shall have neither the words nor the working. We shall have nothing. We are already seeing—that intervention was a minuscule cameo illustration of it—the gradual watering-down of the bold words of the hon. Member for Cornwall, North and his Leader. We are witnessing from the Liberal Party a cynical climb-down at a speed which makes an Olympic 100-metres sprint look like a race between elderly tortoises.
The reality is that the nature of the incomes policy that the Liberal Party will accept depends not one whit on what the country needs. It does not depend upon what the Liberals believe, if they believe anything at all. It depends upon what they think that the Government will be able to secure, because they are quite determined that, even if the Government secure absolutely nothing, they will still stick with the Government, because they


have no alternative place to go to. They are huffing and puffing and about to blow themselves down.
We are entitled to ask a party that has made such bold statements about incomes policy, what is the sticking point? Is there a sticking point? Is there anything that the Government will do or will not do that will lead the Liberal Party to withdraw from the pact? Has there to be a statutory incomes policy? Evidently there has not. The hon. Member for Cornwall, North says that there has to be one, but withdraws that statement the next day. Has there to be an effective incomes policy? Perhaps there has but it is to be a face-saving formula?

Mr. Ioan Evans: Mr. Ioan Evans rose—

Mr. Brittan: I am asking the Liberal Party, not the hon. Gentleman.
If there is a deal, what will have to happen for the Liberals to regard it as having been broken—perhaps when the railwaymen get 17 per cent. or the miners get 40 per cent.? The truth is that this policy of a pact has been shown—

Mr. Mike Noble: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The next motion concerns people's working lives, not the kind of rubbish to which we are now being treated. Is there no way of ending this flow of nonsense?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: No way that is open to me.

Mr. Brittan: We are entitled to ask the Liberal Party these questions. I can see that their Big Brother allies are finding all this a little embarrassing, otherwise we should not have points of order that manifestly are not points of order. We are entitled to ask the Liberals this question: if they mean anything by this economic policy of theirs, when is the breaking point? What will have to happen 10 make them pull out?

Mr. Hooson: Before the Liberal Party or any other party decides to precipitate an election, is it not important to decide what the economic policy of the Conservative Party is? At the moment we do not know.

Mr. Brittan: The hon. and learned Gentleman has read The Right

Approach", but obviously he has not read it very well. His objection to the document was not that it did not say what he wanted but that we would not do it. If he joined us in making it possible for it to be done, he might have the answer that he wanted.
The truth is that the Liberal Party has now to consider whether the pact will be renewed on any terms whatsoever. It will be renewed, because neither side dares to abandon it. The decision has already been made. The words will be found for it later, and if the words need to be altered after they have been entered into, or even at the moment of their utterance, there is no shortage of wordsmiths about the place to undertake that task.
There is no rationale for the pact in terms of policies, which is what I have been speaking about. The stability and economic advantages that the pact was supposed to achieve have not been achieved. Indeed, the Liberal Party is propping up a Government, who, in spite of what the right hon. Member for Fulham (Mr. Stewart) said, are by any normal standards not a Government at all.
I quote from Mr. Hugo Young, in The Sunday Times. He is not a supporter of the Conservative Party, I can assure the House. He says.:
When is a Government not a government? Once upon a time there was a simple answer to this question: when it lost control of the House of Commons…
But the definition is now clearly out of date.
The Prime Minister's
Government cannot be sure of getting anything whatever through the Commons, except possibly a confidence motion, yet Ministers seem to have no doubt that they remain the Government. They sit on the Speaker's right, in their usual place. They answer parliamentary questions, attend meetings of the Cabinet, employ the services of ministerial chauffeurs, draw the ministerial wages.
All the outward formalities, in fact, are punctiliously observed. And that is perhaps the new definition of what it is to be the Government. It no longer has anything to do with governing, a function which implies the presence of a policy together with the means to carry it out. Instead, 'Government' is a state of mind, endorsed by the titles and insignia of office.
That is what this Government have resorted to.
For a once-great Liberal Party, with a sense of history and of the values that it


once believed in, to support such a Government is a disgrace to its principles and a betrayal of its supporters. Perhaps what we are really seeing is a manifestation of support for a new-found libertarian cause. The Government, as we have seen, are in effect dead. Perhaps the Liberals support them now as a practical demonstration of their belief in the legalisation of necrophilia.
The truth of that matter is that whatever is said here the harsh opportunist cynical facts bind the Liberal Party and the Labour Party together for the moment with fetters of iron. But iron is a heavy metal, as well as a base one, and the ship of State that depends on such links will eventually sink hopelessly to the bottom —and as this political "Titanic" goes down a relieved British public will hear the two captains hopelessly, helplessly and cheerlessly singing, the one to the other, the words "Abide with me".

6.37 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Privy Council Office (Mr. William Price): This has been an entirely predictable debate, but t I nevertheless find the behaviour of the Conservative Party rather surprising. The Conservatives should show more sympathy and tolerance towards newly-weds. The abuse began even before the reception had ended. We had warning of what was to come from the Sunday Telegraph of 27th March:
From now on, as far as the Tories are concerned, it is war to the death with the Liberals.
That is what we have seen today. We have had a mixture of hostility and ridicule, a determined attempt to ridicule, a determined attempt to belittle Members of Parliament who a little over three years ago were offered seats around a Conservative Cabinet table. It is a curious fact of political life that to have sustained a Tory Government would have been hailed as a patriotic act, whilst entering into an agreement with a Labour Government is the ultimate in treachery. There is a fundamental difference. That the Tory Government had put their record before the people and had been defeated. This Government have not done so and are not likely to do so for some time to come.
I fully understand the attitude of the Opposition. They want a General Elec-

tion. We wanted one in 1953–54. We wanted one in 1962–63. We wanted one in 1972–73. We did not get one at any of those times, and the Conservatives are not likely to get one now.
The motion talks about the acceptance by the Leader of the Liberal Party
of so many of the policies set out in 'The Right Approach'
If that were true it would have been a remarkable achievement. I was under the impression that there were no policies in that document. In fact, whenever the Leader of the Opposition has been challenged in the House to spell out her policies there has been an ominous silence. I believe that there is something to be said for protecting the electorate from any political party without a programme of any sort.
I have recently had an example of this in my constituency. I have a factory caught up m the discussions over turbine generating and Drax B. It was important for me to know the likely attitude of the Opposition. I wrote in all innocence to the right hon. Member for Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph). He did not reply. Earlier, my shop stewards had written to the hon. Member for Oswestry (Mr. Biffen), when he was Conservative spokesman on industry. I give him full credit; he was kind enough to reply. The trouble was that we could not understand what he said.
The motion gives the game away. Perhaps the Leader of the Opposition has clear policies and is afraid to reveal them, because she thinks that the Government, in pursuit of consensus politics, might introduce them for her. I doubt it, but it is an interesting theory.
The motion accuses the Liberals of plagiarism. There is nothing new in that. The gentle art of filching each other's policies has been going on for as long as I have been interested in politics. Indeed, I should have thought that it was the Liberals themselves who had most reason to complain. It is not for me to get into a dispute about the next Liberal manifesto. We shall not be involved in writing that, any more than they will play any part in preparing ours.
What I do argue is that the agreement between the Government and the Liberal Party is perfectly legitimate and has been fully justified over the past few months,


and that there is every reason to believe that it will be sustained for a considerable time ahead.
One of the main criticisms of the Opposition during the past three years has been the fact that the Government were pushing ahead with their policies on a vote of only 38 per cent. in the country. The pact has increased that figure to 56 per cent. and still they are dissatisfied. And we know why. They will be satisfied with nothing less than the defeat of this Government—I do not object to their hoping that—and their own return to the office which they have always believed was theirs by divine right —and anybody who gets in their way is in for a rough time, as the Liberals have discovered. If the speech of the hon. Member for Cleveland and Whitby (Mr. Brittan) did not put the Liberals off for the rest of their natural lives, nothing ever will.
Yet it is the Opposition who know most about pacts—the pact, for example, which guaranteed 12 Irish votes in the House, the pacts throughout local government which enable independents and ratepayers to vote consistently with Tory groups, the pact in my constituency which enables the ratepayer group to attend meetings of the ruling Conservative Party. And there is the longest established pact of all—the unholy alliance between the Conservative Party and 85 per cent. of the national Press.
We have seen in recent times one of the most vicious and determined attacks upon a democratically elected Government. Certain Fleet Street editors and proprietors appear to believe that they, and they alone, determine when General Elections should take place. [HON. MEMBERS: "Bring back Harold Wilson."] They are unelected, undemocratic and largely unloved, but they have taken upon themselves not only the right to criticise and advise, but to instruct the Government what they will do, when they will do it and on what terms. To those hon. Members who are demanding the return of my right hon. Friend the Member for Huyton (Sir H. Wilson), I say that there is a fundamental difference between him and me. I am a newspaperman by profession and I am entitled to say that the trouble with my colleagues in the newspaper industry is that they take them-

selves too seriously: their ability to influence events and votes is nowhere near as powerful as they, themselves, believe. If elections were decided by Fleet Street, the Labour Party would be lucky to hold a parish council seat in the Rhondda Valley even in a good year. Odd, then, that we have managed to win four of the last five General Elections. The power of the Press to influence people's voting intentions should be set in context.
I urge the House to discount much of what comes out of Fleet Street, particularly from those pundits who speak for the whole nation but who, I suspect, have never been down a pit, around a factory or in a working men's club. Where Mr. Ronald Butt—to take just one—gets his authority to speak for millions of Labour voters has long been a mystery to me. The sight of Mr. David English and Mr. Rupert Murdoch vying for the affection of the Leader of the Opposition is not an endearing one—and whether she is happy in the role of a Sun pin-up, I know not. Fortunately, page 3 gets far more attention from the Sun readers than does its editorials.
What is clear is that we have to face a continuing campaign in Fleet Street for a General Election; every incident will be blown up out of all proportion, every dispute on this side of the House will be magnified, and twice a week there will be rampant election fever at Westminster.
What I find odd about those newspapers which are opposed to the pact is that not so long ago some of them were demanding a mixture of coalitions, National Governments, consensus politics— call it what one will. The pact apparently took us some way towards that objective and one would think that it would have been widely welcomed, but it was not to he, and for one good reason—it was the wrong parties getting together. Fleet Street unashamedly wants Right-wing government and will do all it can to bring it about.
Of course the main argument is that the Government are unpopular, and I do not dispute that. Any Government who took the measures that we had to take—mainly to put right the mess left by the wrongdoings of the previous Administration—would be likely to endure some short-term unpopularity, but I ask the House, since when has it been political


practice for an unpopular Government to go to the country? If that is to be the procedure in future—based presumably on local election, by-election, results—and, if I get my way, European election results—we are in for a hard time. We should make post-war Italy look like a haven of political stability.
The Leader of the Liberal Party summed it up in an article in The Times on 27th June. He pointed out that one of the arguments regularly advanced for not renewing the agreement was that the Government were unpopular and had
been losing by-elections like a drunken sailor shedding fivers.
I would not have put it quite like that—it really is no way to talk about one's in-laws—but I certainly agree with the rest of it:
So did Conservative Governments in 1963 and 1973 but I do not recall the same newspapers demanding their resignations.
It was inevitable that Saffron Walden would be called in evidence today. That is fair enough, and I do not think I should be giving away any internal secrets if I revealed that we had not been expecting to win. Indeed, without being in any way disrespectful to Saffron Walden, I had never regarded it as one of the more likely sites for the headquarters of the People's Republic. Not even my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Southall (Mr. Bidwell), an eternal optimist in these matters, would regard it as one of the more fertile of battle grounds. The revolution will clearly have to begin somewhere else. The Conservative and Liberal Parties will draw their own conclusions from that result. I believe I am entitled to say, however, that one does not judge Governments between General Elections. We have all become accustomed to the wild swings that have gone against both parties almost from the day they came into office. Whether the Liberals see the result as a justification for either extending or breaking off the pact is a matter for them. I certanly see no cause for the latter. Indeed, there are signs that others may be preparing to join In. There have been suggestions that the Ulster Unionists may be near to an agreement. I do not know, but there are limitless possibilities. The Scottish and Welsh nationalists, knowing that they will get no devolution out of a Tory Government, certainly ought

to be in the fold. Then there is the Scottish Labour Party and—who knows? —we might even get back my right hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-East (Mr. Prentice)—one great big, happy family.
One does not expect the Conservative Party to be attracted to that possibility. They believe that they are on to a good thing. We have planted the trees and they want to pick the fruit, and in their view only the Liberals stand in their way.
I am not satisfied that it is as simple as that. I need a lot of convincing that traditional Labour voters are going to be queueing up at a General Election to vote for the ideology of the Leader of the Opposition and the guru from Leeds, North-East.
We shall put it to the test at a time when the British people can make a fair and objective judgment on our record—and on the pact. We were elected for a five-year term and we are entitled to go the full period, if that is what the Prime Minister decides, so long as we have a majority in the House.
Of course, we know why the Tories and their backers want an early General Election. They see the probability of an entirely different situation in 12 months' time. That is what this motion is about, and we might as well recognise it. The Leader of the Opposition can send the furniture van away. The pact is in good shape, the Government will continue and, in due course, the people will make their decision.
This motion invites the Liberals to go over to the other side, although heaven knows what they will find there. I do not believe that they were ever likely to do that, and if they were in any doubt this debate should have left them in no doubt.

Mr. Noble: Does my hon. Friend agree that, in the light of discussions taking place in Geneva, textile workers in my constituency and the constituencies of my hon. Friends the Members for Bury and Radcliffe (Mr. White), Sowerby (Mr. Madden), Oldham, East (Mr. Lamond) and Oldham. West (Mr. Meacher), who is unable to be present today, would face a serious setback to their employment prospects if the pact should collapse? The constituency of the hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Smith), which has the


highest concentration of textile workers, would face the most serious blow of all.

Mr. Price: I think that my hon. Friend is right, and I regret that we have had to spend so much time on the first motion, leaving insufficient time for his motion. I sat down early in the hope that my hon. Friend might have been able to say a few words on the second motion, but I suspect that he will not have the opportunity.

6.54 p.m.

Mr. Norman Tebbit: The Minister's speech makes perfectly plain the real nature of the Lib-Lab pact. He refers to the possibility of giving people a choice. What the pact is really about is that the Government were looking around for someone to vote for them, and it happened that the first takers were the bunch of political hermaphrodites who sit on the Liberal Benches.
The hon. Member for Aberdare (Mr. Evans) made a very revealing comment when he said that he supported the pact because before 1974 "we had a serious crisis". What does the hon. Gentleman think the present crisis is—a funny one?
The right hon. Member for Fulham (Mr. Stewart) said that we now had inflation better under control than at the time of the last General Election. At that time inflation was at 8·4 per cent. and now it is 17 per cent., but the right hon. Gentleman says that it is "under better control". That must give great reassurance to all traditional Liberal voters in the country, that they are now helping to support, through their parliamentary representatives, a Government who have inflation "under control" at 17 per cent. What great joy it must bring to so many Labour Members who normally sit below the Gangway.
The Lib-Lab pact has cemented the social contract just in time for the Prime Minister to announce that the social contract has broken. The average worker on average industrial wages is now losing £8 a week as against the real value of the wage that he was receiving in October 1974. The Lib-Lab pact is, therefore, costing the hard, genuine Labour voter £8 a week. I do not know how much Labour Members normally ask for as a sub when they try to gain members for their respective parties, but I

think that if many of us asked for £8 a week when we knocked on someone's door he would think that we had a bit of a cheek. Yet that is what the pact has cost, and that is what the Liberals are supporting.
It may be doing the Liberals and the Liberal Party some good. I wait to see. In the recent Greater London Council elections in my constituency the Liberals did not even come third. They came fourth, behind even the National Front. That is one comment from Liberal voters on the bunch of charlatans in the House who have betrayed them. Those are the comments that have been made by Liberal voters in the country.
I know full well that my right hon. Friend the Member for Sidcup (Mr. Heath) tried to persuade the Liberals to enter a coalition—I disapproved of it intensely—and the Liberals said that they did not want to become involved in a coalition because they did not want to get into collective responsibility. How can they get involved with the present Government and not get involved in collective responsibility?
The more I think of the pact the more I am reminded of the little poem about a pig and a drunk who fell asleep in the gutter, as someone was walking by. The poem ends:
A passerby was heard to utter,
Gazing at the couple in the gutter,
You can tell a chap that boozes
By the company he chooses,
And the pig got up and slowly walked away.
What is a puzzle to every Liberal-minded man and woman in the country is whether it will be the drunk or the pig that finally gets up and walks away from this disastrous pact.
The whole of the time that the Liberals have given to the Government to live on is time for the Government to create some sort of scare, some sort of sudden boom—if that is within the Government's capacity—or to convince people that it will be sunny yet again, and to go for an election which the Government and the Liberals must calculate would be more likely to return a Socialist Government. That is what the Lib-Lab pact is about—a great change in traditional Liberal policies, away from support of a free society, away from a society of individualists and towards a society of collectivism, towards a Government who


support collectivism, a Government supported not only by the people but by the Liberal Party and by those Labour Members who sit below the Gangway—

It being Seven o'clock, proceedings on the motion lapsed, pursuant to Standing Order No. 6 (Precedence of Government Business).

MERSEYSIDE PASSENGER TRANSPORT BILL (By Order)

Order for consideration, as amended, read.

7.0 p.m.

Mr. Eric Ogden: I beg to move, That the Bill, as amended, be now considered.
I shall be as brief as I can without being discourteous to those hon. Members who, in past months, have shown considerable interest in this Bill.
As I said on Second Reading, the purpose of the Bill is to enable urgent and difficult decisions about public transport on Merseyside to be made by the people of Merseyside, for the people of Merseyside, in and on Merseyside and not 200 miles away in Westminster or Whitehall. That was my reason for introducing and supporting the Bill on Second Reading on Thursday 24th March, and it remains my purpose. Hon. Members from Merseyside will confirm that there has been no great rush of Members to undertake that responsibility or to take it away from me. The responsibility is mine.
The Bill is a House of Commons Bill; it is no longer the Merseyside Passenger Transport Executive Bill. It is in two parts. Part I concerns the future of the River Mersey ferries. Part II proposes means to reduce the very considerable losses caused by a minority of bus passengers who deliberately contrive to defraud the MPTE and their fellow passengers by paying less than the proper fare for any journey.
The annual deficit on ferry services is estimated to be £1 million. The annual loss caused by over-riding and underpayment of fares on the buses is estimated to be £2 million—a total of £3 million per annum, no small sum and a matter on which the people of Merseyside have the right to expect our interest, concern and help. To date, it has been given by hon. Members on both sides, in varying degrees. I hope that it will continue.
Because of that interest and concern, a number of points were raised on Second Reading by hon. Members on both sides of the House. In response to that concern, when replying, I gave a number of assurances on behalf of the MPTE—a public inquiry and the conditions under


which it would be operated, and the overriding clauses. In Committee all but one of these undertakings have been honoured by the MPTE, and I take responsibility for the one that was not honoured. It was to ensure that written into the Bill would be the right of Merseyside Members to appear before a public inquiry into the ferries. I do not need an Act of Parliament to give me the right to appear before a public inquiry into Merseyside ferries. God willing, I hope to be there, and heaven help anybody who tries to prevent me or other hon. Members from attending. So the MPTE has carried out every pledge made on Second Reading. Hon. Members will be aware of the continuing interest and contact between themselves, the MPTE and the county council.
Originally the Bill was introduced for a Labour-conrolled county council to which a Conservative Party leader of the council gave his full support on behalf of his Conservative group. Times change, and the Bill now before the House is supported by a Conservative-controlled county council to which the Labour leader on the county council gives his full support on behalf of his group. My authority for speaking is a letter from the chairman of the county council, Councillor Sir Kenneth Thompson, dated 11th July and sent from Metropolitan House, Liverpool. The letter reads:
The Bill comes up for consideration at 7 p.m. tonight and as you were kind enough to move the Second Reading earlier this year I should be grateful if you will undertake to move the consideration stage on behalf of the county council and the Passenger Transport Executive and reply to any subsequent debates on the amendments".
I hope that that will, in part at least, allay fears of Opposition Members without raising doubts among my hon. Friends. I trust that that will be of help.
The proposals to deal with "robbery through over-riding"—for that is what it is—are based on the practical experience of Cardiff and approved by the traffic commissioners in Cardiff city. They have been carefully and sensibly implemented and have caused no difficulty to the lawful public, to the police or to transport workers in Cardiff. I trust that that kind of active cautious approach by the MPTE will cause no difficulty for the lawful public, police and transport workers in

Liverpool. There is no reason why it should.
Some of my hon. Friends expressed concern because they thought at that time that some of the transport workers involved on Merseyside were opposed to the Bill. I quote a letter dated 8th July 1977 from Mr. Duffy, the Secretary of the MPTE:
During a meeting this afternoon, Friday 8th, with nominated representatives of all those inspectors representing both NALGO and the T&amp;GWU I was asked to inform you, for the purposes of Monday's debate if necessary, that those nominated inspectors saw no insuperable obstacles in the way of our introducing a standard general system on Merseyside through consultation and discussion with them and they would certainly not wish the Bill to be lost because any Member of Parliament may be under the erroneous assumption that they, the unions, disapprove in principle of what the Executive is trying to do in Clauses 8 and 9.
In March, I asked for the opportunity for the Bill to be further considered. Hon. Members gave that opportunity. Now I ask for the amended Bill to be further considered, not on any party basis, not on any payroll or party vote, but on its merits. If we fail to do that tonight, the responsibility will lie not with the MPTE or with the Merseyside County Council but with those who wish to deny the opportunity of further consideration. After all, £3 million per annum is no small burden to be carried by the constituents, ratepayers and transport users of Merseyside. I ask that we consider how to lighten their burden and not to sanction, approve or allow it to continue without further consideration. All I ask is that further consideration be given to the Bill now.

7.8 p.m.

Mr. David Hunt: When we consider the report from the Committee, it is necessary to appreciate the difference between enabling powers and specific powers. That point was raised frequently in Committee, and no satisfactory answer was given to a number of questions posed by hon. Members who served on the Committee.
To appreciate the purpose of the Bill, one must look at it as it was introduced on First Reading. That Bill differed substantially from the Bill that has returned from Committee. Perhaps the most important difference is that there is now provision for a public inquiry. In the original Bill, discontinuance of the ferries


was provided for to be effective following one month's notice by the county council. That was, in effect, the simple way of discontinuing the ferries.
Clause 3 provided that the Executive should publish in local newspapers circulating in the Merseyside county a notice stating that the ferries were to be discontinued. That notice should be one month's notice—that is, of the day fixed for discontinuance—and should be no earlier than the expiration of one month from the date of publication of the said notice.
I say this because my opposition to the Bill as it now stands to be considered is founded upon the fact that right from the start the Bill included provisions to discontinue the ferry service at Seacombe. To understand why these provisions were included one realises the merit of the Wallasey Corporation Act of 1958. Under that Act, there are existing powers for the Seacombe ferry to be discontinued. Section 158 of that Act starts with the memorable words:
For the removal of doubt
and continues
it is hereby enacted and declared that the Corporation have power (and shall be deemed always to have had power) to suspend any of their ferry services for such periods or during such times of the day or night as they may from time to time think fit.
Subsection (2) states that
The Corporation may with the consent of the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation permanently discontinue and abandon any of their ferry services.
The Act later lays clown the procedures under which such discontinuance should take place. Section 213(1) clearly states that
Any Minister of the Crown may cause such local inquiries to be held as he may consider necessary for the purpose of any of his functions under this Act.
I would have thought that in 1958 a sensible, proper procedure was laid down for the discontinuance of the Seacombe ferry. It allows for the ferry services to be discontinued, but only when the Secretary of State permits the authority to do so and after such inquiries as he may consider necessary.
We come back to the Bill as it originally entered this place. It provided for the revoking and repealing of those sections of the Wallasey Corporation Act that I have just react out. It stated that

the Seacombe and Woodside ferries could be discontinued at one month's notice without any power for the Secretary of State to intervene and without any provision for any public inquiry whatever at which the opinion of the public could be gauged.
Therefore, there is no doubt that hon. Members of this House greeted that Bill with a certain amount of scepticism and disagreement. What it sought to do—I confine my remarks to Seacombe at this stage—was to remove all the procedures that already existed for public inquiries and to replace them by discontinuance on one month's notice. The Bill also included the power to carry out the same discontinuance upon one month's notice with regard to Woodside.
I raise this matter because I feel that, when considering the Bill tonight one must have in mind the intention of the Executive. It seems quite clear to me that the intention of the Executive in promoting the Bill was to make it very simple and easy for the Executive to discontinue the ferries without any provision for local inquiries or any provision for the Secretary of State.
During Second Reading, the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Ogden) said that for his part he accepted there had been considerable disquiet among hon. Members about the lack of any public consultation. The Bill therefore went to Committee. It has now come back from Committee and contains provision for a public inquiry. I shall refer to the provisions in the Bill in greater detail when we discuss New Clauses 1 and 2. However, under the Bill there is now procedure for a public inquiry. It is set out not in the Bill itself but in Schedule 1(2) which states that
Before making any such order under the said section 3
—that is, the determination of the appointed day with regard to the Woodside and Seacombe ferries—
the County Council shall cause a public inquiry to be held in connection with the proposals of the order.
One immediately asks what the intention of the Bill was with regard to Seacombe because there is no point in enacting new procedures when existing procedures are on the statute book under the Wallasey Corporation Act 1958.
One then reads on and one starts to understand the purpose and the intention of the promoters. The Bill states, in Schedule 1 (4), that
The County Council shall appoint as the person to hold any such public inquiry a person selected by them in agreement with all the district councils within the county".
There are then provisions for notice to be given
in one or more local newspapers
and there shall be 42 days' notice to enable all those participating to find time in some way to prepare their cases. There is also provision which states that
The Executive, each of the district councils within the county, and any person interested in the proposals of the order may appear at the public inquiry, either in person or by counsel, solicitor or other representative.
One immediately envisages an inquiry of considerable importance which is attended by a large number of people.
I come now to the steps that would set the inquiry in motion. They can only be as a result of a decision of the county council to discontinue the ferry services. If it decides to discontinue the ferry services, the provisions for a local inquiry in Schedule 1 come into play. But they come into force only when it is decided to close the ferry.
Let us envisage what will happen at the public inquiry. If there is no agreement, the independent chairman shall be appointed by the Secretary of State. There is provision for that. This is relevant to what I shall say later. Failing agreement with regard to the chairman of the inquiry
a person nominated by the Secretary of State on an application made by the County Council after notice to each of the district councils
shall be the person holding the inquiry.
One is therefore envisaging a situation in which the Secretary of State has appointed the chairman. The inquiry is then held. All those who seek to oppose the discontinuance of the ferries rise to their feet and make their case. Indeed. I envisage that experts would come to such an inquiry to give expert evidence with regard to the economics of the situation and to the environmental, leisure, tourism and other consequences of closing down the ferry services on Merseyside. At this stage I express no opinion with

regard to the merits or demerits of such a discontinuance.
One can envisage the scene in which all those who are opposed to the discontinuance of the ferries are present at the public inquiry before an independent chairman. The chairman of the county council and the transport executive would have to argue their case. No doubt they would bring before the inquiry expert witnesses of great calibre who would say how unprofitable the ferries are. They would ensure that every possible item of evidence was before the inquiry. It would be up to the chairman of the county council to make certain that every argument in favour of closing the ferry was put before the independent chairman.
What would happen then? Having heard the county council's case, and also having listened to the arguments advanced by those who support the ferry services, the chairman of the inquiry would make his recommendations. Paragraph 14 of Schedule 1, as it now is, is relevant in this respect. The chairman of the inquiry might make a recommendation against the county council. He might say "I find the county council's case for closing the ferry services is not proved." His decision could be as final as that. On the other hand, he might say that the case was proved in certain respects and not in others, or that he found the case for closure proved. Certainly there are a number of alternatives open to the chairman.
What will happen to the chairman's recommendations? This is the first fundamental point to which I wish to address my remarks. Paragraph 14 says that
Before deciding to make the order
—that is, the order discontinuing the ferries—
the county council shall consider the report and recommendations (if any) of the person who held the public inquiry.
Therefore, having pleaded the case before the inquiry's chairman, the county council must then consider his report. It should be noted that there is no provision whatever for any right of appeal against the decision of the Merseyside County Council. It could receive the report written by the chairman who has sat for many weeks, and even months, taking evidence and who has sought to be


as impartial as possible in recommendations which come down against the council. There is no provision by which that report can he subject to any right of appeal against the decision of the county council. That is a fundamental matter.
If the county council decides—I agree that under its present leadership there is no reason why it should do so—the reject the report of such a powerful and wide-ranging inquiry, surely there ought to be some provision in the Bill to state clearly—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Myer Galpern): I have allowed the hon. Gentleman to go fully into the subject, but, having listened to him now for almost 20 minutes, I should remind him that his arguments on this motion must be restricted to what is in the Bill. I intervened in his remarks because he was beginning to deal with what is not in the Bill. The subject of what is not in the Bill will arise when the House considers the new clauses and the amendments.

Mr. Hunt: Perhaps I may explain my position, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I accept what you have said and of course I shall pay heed to your ruling. There is a provision in the Bill to repeal Section 158 of the Wallasey Corporation Act, to which I shall address myself. It allows for an appeal to the Secretary of State in the event of discontinuance of the ferry services.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am sorry to intervene once again, but we should seek to get the matter clear, although we conclude this debate at 10 o'clock in any case. I intervened in the hon. Gentleman's remarks originally when he began to deal with the question of what ought to be in the Bill.

Mr. Hunt: I apologise to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for having used an incorrect phrase. I should not have referred to what should be included in the Bill. I should have said that Section 158 of the Wallasey Corporation Act should not be repealed by this Bill.
When the county council considers the report of the inspector who has carried out the public inquiry, there is, under Section 158 of the Wallasey Corporation Act, a provision under which the county council's decision is subject to appeal.

Therefore, paragraph 14 is most inadequate in that respect and, coupled with the repealed section, does not preserve the rights of the public. The public, having achieved a victory on the merits of their case, may then see the county council throwing that victory out of the window and reinstating its original case as argued before the independent chairman of the public inquiry. That would defeat the object of the existing legislation which this Bill seeks to repeal in Schedule 2.

Mr. Ogden: The hon. Gentleman will know that responsibility for passenger transport in Merseyside is controlled by an Act of 1972—legislation under the control and direction of a Conservative Government. We also know that a Conservative-controlled county council is now operating those powers. In other words, is not the hon. Gentleman saying that he is not prepared to trust a Conservative-controlled county council and the word of a Conservative county council chairman, but is prepared to trust the word of a Labour Secretary of State for Transport because the decision will be made by him? It appears that the hon. Gentleman prefers that an appeal should be made to a Labour Minister in Westminster rather than to a Conservative chairman in Merseyside. I do not want to bring party politics into the argument, because this is a cross-party Bill, but it appears that the hon. Gentleman does not trust his own Conservative colleagues. If I can trust them, surely the hon. Gentleman can.

Mr. Hunt: The hon. Gentleman says that he does not wish to bring party politics into this matter, but he appears to have done so most effectively. I do not believe that party politics has anything to do with this Bill, which is very much a non-party matter. The people whom I represent are not just those who voted for me but everybody who lives in my constituency. I seek to represent those constituents as effectively as I can. In doing so on a Bill of this nature, I cannot allow party political considerations to enter into the matter.
The hon. Gentleman asked whether I was ready, able and willing to trust the decision of a Labour Secretary of State. It will come as no surprise to the hon. Gentleman to learn that 78 per cent. of his constituents who voted for me at the


last election do not believe that there will be a Labour Secretary of State for much longer. Without wishing to score party political points, I would at least make that one.
I am arguing for the retention of the existing power in the Wallasey Corporation Act which is sought to be repealed by this Bill. I am trying to look at the matter as objectively as I can. I have taken note of the fact that now leading the Mersey County Council is a man in whom I have considerable trust, whose integrity I respect, and whose word I accept.
In fact, we are talking about individual members of the county council seeking to come to a decision. In that county council there will undoubtedly be a majority one way or the other. Under the Bill as returned from Committee there is provision whereby a simple majority of the members of the county council could overturn or completely reject the findings of the chairman of the impartial inquiry. That has nothing to do with trusting one political party or the other; it has to do with the justice of the situation. Is it just, right or equitable that those who have argued at great length before a public inquiry should have no right of appeal to the Secretary of State when the county council seeks to override the decision or victory that they have achieved before the inquiry?
All along I have said that my only major objection to the Bill—I have many other objections—is that it has no right of appeal as I have described. I want to see some right of appeal retained, as in the Wallasey Corporation Act, and if necessary the same procedure applied to Woodside. I have made that clear as often as I can. I made it clear on Second Reading that I should not seek to oppose the Bill and that I should be prepared to drop every other objection that I have if such a right of appeal were introduced. I made that clear, although some of my other objections are well-founded and, I believe, correct. They may be raised in another place if the Bill proceeds tonight.
I am prepared to drop all my other objections and all the amendments and new clauses that I have proposed if I receive an undertaking that in another place there will be deleted from the Bill

what is presently inside it so that the terms of the Wallasey Corporation Act, or similar provisions, may be inserted. That would effectively remove the effect of the repeal within the Bill, especially if similar provisions were provided for Woodside. Surely that is a fair and reasonable position. I say that if some right of appeal to the Minister is inserted, I shall have no objection to the Bill.
It has been said in Committee that there is provision for appeal, which of course there is, whereby someone can make application to the High Court when the county council has published in the local newspapers the notice for the making of the order to discontinue the ferries. That is found in Clause 3(6)(b), which states:
On any application under paragraph (a) above, the High Court—

(i) may, by interim order, suspend the operation of the order until the final determination of the proceedings; and
(ii) if satisfied that the order is not within the powers conferred by this Act, or that the interests of the applicant have been substantially prejudiced by failure to comply with any requirement of this Act with respect to the making of the order, quash the order either generally or so far as may be necessary for the protection of the interests of the applicant."


It may be that I represent some wealthy constituents who could afford to make application to the High Court. I know, as a solicitor of the Supreme Court of Judicature, that it is expensive to make such applications. I go further, and say that it is prohibitively expensive to do so. Surely I am not seeking to be unreasonable when I say that the present provision for appeal to the High Court, which I recognise is contained within the Bill, is not acceptable. At the same time there should be provision for right of appeal to the Secretary of State, as under the Wallasey Corporation Act. I do not think that the public interest is adequately safeguarded by the Bill as it is presently drawn. It is not so much what it omits; it is what it does to remove the right of appeal to the Secretary of State by repealing the Wallasey Corporation Act.
I read as carefully as I could the minutes of the proceedings in Committee. It was said that the Bill was principally concerned with the obtaining of orders to discontinue the ferries. It was stated
It is not concerned as such with the actual decision whether the ferries are to be discontinued.


Counsel moving the Bill before the Committee said quite clearly that those were matters to be reserved for local decision. He then stated:
But the principle of whether or not the power to discontinue the ferries should be given to the county council and the executive is not one against which there is any petition.
Counsel sought to make a great deal of that argument in Committee but surely he was answering himself. He stressed that the Bill was not dealing with the question whether the ferries should be discontinued, and argued that people were not petitioning, but I know that many of my constituents and many people throughout the Wirral peninsula would have done so if there had been anything more in the Bill. In that event there would have been a substantial number of petitions.
I refer to that issue because later in Committee on the first day there was quite a large argument about the 1972 agreement. I do not wish to go into the intricacies of the agreement but it is relevant to refer to it bearing in mind the attempt that has been made to make a case for the urgency with which the Bill is now being pressed upon us. The case was pressed in Committee for bringing forward the Bill, considering it today and then seeking to enact it so that its provisions could come into effect.
What is the urgency? We are told that no decision has been made whether to discontinue the ferries. It is said that powers are being sought merely to enable them to be discontinued. As such powers already exist in respect of one ferry, why the urgency? I shall return to why I do not believe that there is any urgency in respect of Woodside. I shall deal with that later.
The 1972 agreement is extremely relevant. At that time the Merseyside Passenger Transport Executive was entering into an agreement with the Mersey Docks and Harbour Company. That was on 9th October 1972. It was stated that the agreement was to continue for 10 years. My question—it is a question that has been raised time after time in Committee—is why. here is now such urgency when in 1972 provision was being enacted in a voluntary sense in the terms of the agreement with the two bodies, an agreement which was to run for 10 years. I shall turn to the let-out clauses but it was effectively an agreement for 10 years.

Mr. Eddie Loyden: That agreement for 10 years also meant that the dock company entered into a great deal of capital expenditure in making provision for the new stage at Liverpool. Certainly the dock company was of the opinion that the 10-year agreement really meant something of that sort.

Mr. Hunt: I completely agree with the hon. Gentleman. When we examine the Committee proceedings we find that point being raised again and again, particularly by the Mersey Docks and Harbour Company. It was entering an agreement which carried a number of obligations. What was the response from the promoters? Through their counsel they said:
The position is a little difficult, of course, because the executive were put on the spot in 1971.
It is made clear in page 19 of the minutes of Wednesday 11th May 1976 that at that time they had not resolved to come to Parliament to seek powers to discontinue the ferry service. The proposal by the company created acute embarrassment for them which the Committee believes may have placed them in a difficult position.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ravensbourne (Mr. Hunt) carries the same name as myself and that causes much confusion in my constituency when I send my constituents the minutes of the proceedings in Committee. I wish that when minutes were printed, an initial or Christian name could be put in. However, that is not a point to be made now.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ravensbourne, accepting the arguments that had been put forward by counsel, said:
It would seem to me that two public bodies who should be concerned with public expenditure should have been in communication and perhaps some kind of reliable forecast about future traffic ought to have been discussed at that time. I was wondering whether such discussions took place.
Counsel in Committee said:
I think it is right to say that there was some indication at that time of the agreement that the executive were not certain as to how long they were to continue providing a ferry service.
Coming out of the Committee is the general impression that there was considerable confusion in 1972 when the executive entered into an agreement to keep the ferry service in being, extending for 10 years.
There were some provisions whereby the agreement could be terminated on six months' notice. Where is the urgency when, in 1972, already faced with what a number of hon. Members pointed out in Committee was clear and unequivocal evidence that the ferry service had declined between 1955 and 1971, there was still a willingness to enter into an agreement for some considerable time?
At one stage the Chairman was prompted to say that he did not feel that there was any point in continuing with the Committee proceedings until that matter had been sorted uot. It was sorted out.
I cite these minutes as evidence for the general feeling that there is not sufficient merit in the urgency to bring forward these enabling powers that the promoters of the Bill and, indeed, the hon. Member for West Derby seek to establish.

Mr. Ogden: The Committee approved the Bill. I suggest that £3 million as the estimated loss is a reason for some urgency. What any organisation thought in 1972 may be proved wrong in 1976. We have had this matter before us from November last year through to July, and it will continue in the other place for some time. This sum of money ought to be dealt with. It is getting more, not less.
Perhaps I may make one comment on an earlier point made by the hon. Member for Wirral (Mr. Hunt). The hon. Gentleman referred to the right of appeal. I have given that matter some consideration. I hope that he will accept that I am in some difficulty. The hon. Gentleman wants a right of appeal to the Secretary of State against a decision by the county council. At 7.43 p.m. on 11th July I do not know whether the Secretary of State for Transport will approve that idea or not. Indeed, I do not know whether the right hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Page) or the hon. Member for Wallasey (Mrs. Chalker) would support or agree with that idea, or whether my hon. Friends would agree or disagree. All I can say is that the MPTE has done all that was asked of it on Second Reading.
The hon. Gentleman is now suggesting that the House, collectively, should scrap all those amendments and put something else in their place. I cannot give the kind of undertaking for which he is asking.

I do not know whether we can get Merseyside Members of Parliament together with members of the county council to get an agreed procedure for an inquiry and appeal to the Secretary of State. If so, and if the hon. Gentleman would be prepared to accept a majority decision on that matter, so should I. I do not suggest 10 Labour Members against five Conservative Members. We could weight them with the county council. We could try to get an agreed procedure to be implemented by the county council. However, the Bill is for the House to decide. I cannot give the hon. Gentleman the assurance that we should scrap everything that has been done until I have heard the views of hon. Members on both sides.

Mr. Hunt: I appreciate all that has been said by the hon. Member for West Derby. I do not believe that he is right in saying that the Committee found the Bill proved. The Committee found the preamble to the Bill proved. I think that is the technical terminology that should be cited.

Mr. Ogden: Yes.

Mr. Hunt: I suggest that there should be provisions within the Bill for the non-repeal of the Wallasey Corporation Act 1958 or for the enactment of similar provisions repeating the safeguards that the House previously placed on the discontinuance of the ferries. The Bill seeks to take away those safeguards. I want similar procedures in the Bill for both the Seacombe and Woodside ferries.
I believe that I am putting forward a logical argument. The promoters are seeking the repeal of legislation enacted in this place. The onus of proof is on them. I believe that we should maintain the safeguards until they can be replaced by something better. I have amendments down for consideration tonight which I believe will improve the Bill. I am talking to those amendments at the moment.
Until the Bill can be improved, any assurances given to me by the hon. Member for West Derby must be in the form of undertakings. The hon. Gentleman seeks to press the Bill forward for consideration tonight. All I ask is that he should give an undertaking to accept that the Bill does wrong by attempting to re-remove those provisions in the Wallasey Corporation Act and that he is prepared


Corporation Act and that he is prepared to replace those provisions by something similar that gives the safeguard of a right of appeal.
The hon. Gentleman said that he did not know whether the Secretary of State for Transport would accept the right of appeal to him. My experience, from reading past copies of Hansard and looking at previous provisions of this nature, is that on almost every occasion the Secretary of State for Transport has said that he did not want the power. There has never been an adequate, impulsive or enthusiastic acceptance of the onus of duty and responsibility. I talk not of the present holder of the office of Secretary of State for Transport, but of someone to whom the public have every right to look, because he can take an impartial glance at the procedures that have been gone through to decide, first, whether the right decision has been taken and, secondly, whether the right procedures in reaching that decision have been followed.
In support of what I am seeking to do I should like to refer to a point that was made by my hon. Friend the Member for Ravensbourne on the last day of the proceedings in Committee. The point that he made was not properly answered, and I shall shortly refer to his response following the reply that he received.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ravensbourne, on page 7 of the proceedings in Committee on Wednesday 19th June, said:
There is one point I should like to raise so far as the public inquiry is concerned. I am not altogether happy with the fact that it seems to me that the county council will be judge and jury in its own case. The person holding the public inquiry has merely to report to the county council, and it seems to me that they are entirely free to follow or disregard that report if they so wish. It did occur to me that perhaps the Secretary of State ought to be brought into the picture at some stage before the final decision is taken.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ravensbourne made that point in Committee on the last day. He was then addressed at some length by counsel for the promoters. At the conclusion of that lengthy address, my hon. Friend said:
I will not pursue it at this stage.
One therefore asks: at what stage should my hon. Friend the Member for Ravensbourne seek to pursue it? Naturally, it is right that it should be pur-

sued here when we are considering the report of the Committee. I hope that that emphasises that I, like that member of the Committee, feel that it is wrong for the county council to be, judge and jury. Under the Bill the county council seek to be prosecuting counsel, judge and jury, which is not acceptable.

Mr. Loyden: Does the hon. Member agree that the case of the county council would have been proved if it had carried out the inquiry before presenting the Bill?

Mr. Hunt: I was coming to that. The hon. Member for Liverpool, Garston (Mr. Loyden) has made one of the most crucial points that I seek to make. I shall come to it when discussing Woodside.
Why have this Bill? What is the purpose of it? There is already power to discontinue the service to Seacombe if there is a proper public inquiry with the right of appeal to the Secretary of State. There is an old law concerning Woodside which was discussed at great length in Committee. That seems to suggest that some legislation is necessary, as amplified by the courts in a recent decision.
Is not the answer to come to the House and ask it to permit the closure of the ferries after a public inquiry? That would enable hon. Members to read the arguments for and against maintaining the services. Those who wish to close the ferries would then be able to say that they had proved their case and ask for power to close them down.
That procedure was followed for the New Brighton ferry, although it was discontinued before the public inquiry. However, I have no authoritative facts about that. After a public inquiry the Secretary of State authorised the discontinuance of the New Brighton ferry.
There is nothing to stop the promoters from going back and trying to work out the best way of saving the ferry. Let them have a public inquiry, as laid down in the Wallasey Corporation Act, with the right of appeal to the Secretary of State. If they do not want to seek the authority of the Secretary of State let them come to the House and seek an enabling Bill to authorise the closure, even if it is retrospective. We could then be asked to authorise the closure.
That also applies to the second part of the Bill. There are already adequate


powers to deal with over-riding. I am not firmly against these provisions in the Bill but there is adequate existing power without a Bill.
I return to my initial argument. Why the urgency? Why the need for the Bill? Time after time in Committee those questions were asked. No adequate response was given. There is no adequate response because there are existing procedures for closing one of the services, primary procedures for the other and existing procedures are effective to deal with over-riding.
I turn to the crucial clause that deals with over-riding. The original Bill contained Clause 7, which I shall not read out because that would abuse the leave that I am being given tonight. The clause is long. We should pause to consider that clause, which deals with over-riding on public service vehicles. We had a lengthy discussion on the original clause. One of the members of the Committee sought to know the justification of the need to insert such provisions. On 12th May 1977 Mr. Hill was examined at length about the combined deficit for 1975–76. He said that he had the budgeted figures for the later years but only the final audited figures for that year. He said that on direct bus operations the loss was £9 million and that the bus companies lost £1·1 million on the ferries. Payments under the rural agreement came to £4·8 million and, after some discussion on the figures, he arrived at a total deficit of £19·6 million. The Committee then discussed what action had been taken to overcome the losses. On 17th May, there was a discussion about the necessity of having the overriding clause.
I refer to a witness, Mr. Milefanti, a representative from the Department of Transport. I quote his evidence with authority because I know his capabilities. Mr. Milefanti gave me great assistance when I was trying to understand the complexities of the minibus legislation. I have had many opportunities to talk about that in the House. I was very pleased when the Bill passed through its many stages last week.
Mr. Milefanti was asked why a standard fare should be imposed in this way

under Clause 7 and in the amended Clauses 8 and 9. He explained that in South Wales the Traffic Commissioners had given authority to charge similar fares to those that are proposed in the Bill. He was asked why there was a need to have such proposals in the Bill. He said that South Wales was an experimental area and already carried out these procedures. He pointed out that Merseyside never made a formal application to the Traffic Commissioners. He explained that the question of the Traffic Commissioners giving their authority did not arise in the case of Merseyside because no formal application had been made and turned down by the Traffic Commissioners. He was talking about the power of the Secretary of State to make a decision on this issue.
It is, of course, open to the Traffic Commissioners to take a view of the law one way or another and to act accordingly. What Mr. Milefanti tried to clarify was the position of the Department of Transport. He said that if the North-West Commissioners were right—presumably he was then referring to an unofficial decision made by those Traffic Commissioners—it was necessary to have an express power in order to operate a controlled fare or standard fare, or whatever one calls it, in this way. In that case it is necessary to have a fresh legal provision. Then—and this was the opinion of the Department of Transport—that should be a national provision and should not be a local legislative one. This is what the Bill seeks to do.
The hon. Member for Preston, South, or North—no one assists me in telling me which one it is, so I go on.

Mr. Stan Thorne: North.

Mr. Hunt: The hon. Member for Preston, North (Mr. Atkins) said this—and I think it was a very good question in Committee, which was again never answered. He said to Mr. Milefanti,
Would you not agree therefore the tidier way to deal with this problem is for the Passenger Transport Executives to get together and jointly promote a Bill which would give them the power which just one Passenger Transport Executive is now seeking?


Mr. Milefanti replied, quite logically I think,
If they did that, that certainly would be tidier as regards Passenger Transport Executives.
I believe that it would.
Perhaps one of my major difficulties in this case is that this Bill—I believe that this was also commented on in Committee—is really two separate Bills. On the one hand, it deals with the ferry service—I have tried so far to avoid sentiment on that issue, but it seeks to discontinue the ferry service—and on the other hand, it deals with over-riding. The only connection is that both these services and this practice respectively are stated to make considerable losses. That is the only connecting factor.
I believe in law that that is a very bad reason for putting things into a Bill. If we were to try to lump together in one Bill all the services, practices and undertakings, and, indeed, pursuits of Government, that made a loss, we should need a codified system of legislation, which would debar reading, because it would be so lengthy that we should be reading it until the year 2000.

Mr. Ogden: I always thought that the hon. Gentleman was in favour of initiative and encouraged enterprise and all those things. There is a situation in which standard fares are operating in Cardiff under the law of the land. Inquiries were made of a similar body which gave that authority, the Traffic Commissioners on Merseyside. The indication was that it would not be allowed on Merseyside. So we have one Act of Parliament and two different groups of Traffic Commissioners, one allowing something to happen in Cardiff and the other saying that on Merseyside it would not go through. Therefore, on Merseyside, rather than waiting for someone else to do this—and hon. Members often complain that we have too much legislation—they decided that as there was an Act coming along they would do this at the same time. I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman would have approved of this. Why wait to catch up when we can be the leaders?

Mr. Hunt: I am always in favour of initiative, but not confusion. One of the saddest things that results from this place —again, I am speaking as a solicitor and

perhaps a trifle pompously, for which I ask for your fiat, Mr. Deputy Speaker—is that this place turns out Act after Act which quite often conflict with other legislation and have cross-references to other legislation. It really has resulted in the law of the land becoming a legislative jungle. The one thing that we should try to do is to avoid confusion. That is what is caused by the Bill seeking in its second part, in these two clauses, to introduce this new concept legislatively for just one particular area.
We all know the arguments about experimental areas, and no doubt the Minister—I am very pleased to see that he is taking such an interest as to listen very carefully to what is being said—is in favour of experimental areas and trying to find a path through the difficulties of road traffic law and trying experimental areas. I happen to disagree with him in that concept, but he wishes to try experimental areas. Surely here there is opportunity for us to regard South Wales as an experimental area and, indeed, for the Department of Transport, in consultation with the Traffic Commissioners, to designate other parts of the country, if necessary, where such experiments could be carried on. However, I do not believe that it is right to have in the Bill such extensive powers quoted unilaterally, so to speak.
Since we had the opportunity of discussing the Bill on Second Reading, there has been a tremendous amount of correspondence between the Chief Constable of Merseyside, on the one hand, and the Merseyside Passenger Transport Executive on the other. I think that it is right —no doubt the hon. Member for West Derby will agree—to heed the views of the man who will have to enforce the Bill's provisions, which we are now seeking to enact. I want to quote from a copy of a letter which I received from the Chief Constable and which he had addressed to Mr. Duffy of the Merseyside Passenger Transport Executive on 9th May. I believe that we have a right carefully to consider the views that he expresses, because they so drastically affect the contents of the Bill, and whether or not we approve what is in the Bill on this consideration.
The Chief Constable refers to a meeting which took place—and I was glad


that such a meeting had taken place—between the Merseyside Passenger Transport Executive and himself. At that meeting he started off by explaining that he had expressed his objections to the proposals on overriding. He then explained what these objections were, and I believe that we must take them into account. He said,
My criticism stems from two viewpoints, one purely local taking in the Merseyside scene and the other, recognising the important innovations contained in the Bill, looking at it in a national perspective. The Bill, which aims to make your Authority financially more viable, seeks … to introduce an offence of overriding to deal with those passengers who travel a further distance than that for which they have paid. A standard fare is introduced by Clause 7(a) to be levied on the offending passenger.
He then comments that the clause, which has now come back from Committee as Clause 8, on standard fares, differs from the original Clause 7 in name only and retains the initial conception of a fixed penalty and on-the-spot fines. He then explains,
It is the difficulties likely to be met in enforcing these provisions which give rise to my concern. I am aware that it is the opinion of the Merseyside Passenger Transport Executive that Clause 7 will not materially add to the burdens of the Merseyside Police, but I must repeat the view expressed at the meeting that I find this conclusion somewhat unreal. If the passenger concerned refuses to pay the fine or … the standard fare and declines to provide his name and address, your employee has no recourse but to call for the assistance of my officers. Given the size of the problem that you explain, namely, 16 per cent. of your passengers indulge in overriding resulting in a loss of revenue of the order of £2 million to £2½ million a year, and your resources in manpower, which according to a recent survey is 290 inspectors and 2,635 drivers, I should have thought that considerable confrontation would result if this legislation is given parliamentary approval.
We should, indeed, reflect on those words when we seek to give consideration and approval to these clauses.
The Chief Constable then explained that he had conducted an examination of recent crime statistics which indicated that in 1976 a total of 19 offences involving criminal assaults on bus crews were recorded on Merseyside. He also enclosed details of those offences where, in 1976, there had been instances of drivers being punched after disputes.
Driver kicked after dispute over fare; driver struck by a brick; driver kicked and

punched; driver kicked; driver punched; drive punched in Shell Road, Rocky Lane, Liverpool 6, in 1976; driver both punched and kicked by two youths who had travelled further than fare paid.
We should reflect on this, because it is exactly what we are talking about. He goes on to give further examples:
Conductor punched after dispute over fare; driver punched after dispute; driver punched and kicked by passengers after dispute; conductor assaulted whilst ejecting troublesome passenger; bus inspector punched and driver punched after argument; driver knocked to ground.
All of these are separate instances. There are four more:
Driver assaulted by passenger after dispute; driver punched by passenger for no reason; driver punched after dispute; in Fleet Lane, St. Helen's, driver assaulted after dispute over fare.
He said that he would also accept that many assaults of a lesser nature had occurred but were not recorded. He added:
During the period 1st October 1976 to 20th April 1977, officers of Merseyside police were called to the assistance of bus crews on 53 occasions and, as a result, a total of 25 persons were prosecuted for various offences, seven of which featured some sort of violence.
He then states, and we should pay heed to his words:
To introduce into this already difficult situation the further aggravation of a standard fare penalty and not expect an escalation of police involvement is to ignore the obvious. You did hint that you do not propose to ask my force to extend its activities beyond the limit of existing manpower.
It was clear from what the Chief Constable of Merseyide was saying that he had no doubt that these powers which are being sought would lead to confrontation. Indeed, he ended his letter by saying:
If you in the Merseyside Passenger Transport Executive are successful in your bid for these powers my officers and, subsequently, officers of other police forces would find themselves involved in ascerbic situations with members of the public merely to correct the financial shortcomings in your own and similar organisations.
We might say that he is a chief constable who does not moderate his views just to exchange pleasantries with the Merseyside Passenger Transport Executive. I would have thought that those views would have been accepted by the person to whom they were addressed. I am not aware of what consultations took place between the date of that letter and


the reply from Mr. Duffy of 27th May 1977 in which he said:
It astonishes and dismays the executive that you are prepared to imply that we should continue to carry these losses either because of some supposed strain our defensive measures might place upon your manpower resources or in the interests of good police-public relationships. It seems to the executive to be a novel and disturbing doctrine that we must, in the interests of the police service, tolerate a certain degree of criminality.
What pompous words! Perhaps the pomposity disguises a lack of logic. I said I believe that the losses being experienced by this form of over-riding are serious. If the figures are correct £2 million a year is a savage and difficult burden for the ratepayers of Merseyside and for the taxpayers of the country, through Government grants, to bear. Perhaps the chief constable is right. When seeking to do something constructive about over-riding, perhaps we shall involve ourselves in an effort to limit public expenditure and public losses in one direction with the result that there will be a considerable increase in public expenditure in another direction.
If the chief constable is right and the introduction of the over-riding provisions would lead to an increase in the number of confrontations, what is already a sorely stretched police force in Merseyside would find it virtually impossible to meet the increased demands. I have today received a telephone call, just before I came into the Chamber, from one of my constituents, who said that he had been burgled and robbed twice in the past week. He asked "What are you going to do about it?" I suggest that one of the things we can do about it here is not to impose an additional strain on the police force by asking it to uphold a law which will be a difficult law and may well lead to confrontations, the like of which we would not wish to put on to the police.
When the Committee agreed and found the Preamble proved, it said that it was right for the executive to seek these powers. What it did not find agreed or approved was that it was right for the powers to be exercised. I am advised that that is a technical distinction. I want to go on to Woodside because that merits a detailed—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I hope that the hon. Member for Wirral (Mr. Hunt) will not miss the last ferry.

Mr. Hunt: It is my purpose tonight to make sure that there is no last ferry. What I understand is that when this Bill returned from Committee—

Mr. Leslie Spriggs: Before the hon. Gentleman goes any further, would he take it from me that in the Fylde area, where I live, there is a standard sum charged for anyone who over-travels? Is he aware that I have not heard of or seen any disturbance following a conductor or driver asking for an excess fare to be paid? Is it not a fact that he is stretching this point to make the corporation's case weak in the eyes of the public and the police? The police have a duty to uphold the law. I can assure him that citizens in my area are only too glad to pay up and avoid prosecution.

Mr. Erie S. Hefter: Mr. Erie S. Hefter (Liverpool, Walton)rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We are on to the ferry now. I think that we have finished with the other subject. The hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) may be able to take part in the debate when the hon. Member for Wirral has finished his speech.

Mr. Hunt: Mr. Hunt rose—

Mr. Heifer: Will the hon. Member give way?

Mr. Hunt: Yes.

Mr. Heifer: On this point about overriding and the people who might get transport from Liverpool to St. Helens, may I ask him to bear in mind that the Fylde and the Liverpool routes could be very different indeed and the reactions of the passengers very different?

Mr. Hunt: I am glad that the hon. Member for Walton (Mr. Heifer) has made that point. It is a significant one, and I apologise for having omitted it when I dealt with over-riding. I admit that you are absolutely right, Mr. Deputy Speaker, in that I had moved on to the question of the Woodside ferry, but I had not intended to leave over-riding altogther, because I have it in mind to make another brief reference to it at the end of my speech.
I come then to the question of the Woodside ferry and the ferry service itself. After the hon. Member for Walton had


spoken in the Second Reading debate, I was reported in The Sunday Times as having said that he brought tears to my eyes. There is a great deal of sentiment attached to the ferries. As a Liverpudlian and one who went to Liverpool College for all his schoolboy life, I have used the ferries a very great deal, and I still use them whenever I can. There is no doubt that the ferries strike a deep note in the hearts of Merseyside people.
I am not allowed to disclose any private conversation that I may have had with people of great dignity, but it was an enormous pleasure for me to be on the "Royal Iris" on Tuesday 21st June, when Her Majesty The Queen and Prince Philip came to the River Mersey. What form of transport did they use? What form of transport did they consider appropriate and right to use in order to see the people of Merseyside? Of course, they chose and travelled on the "Royal Iris", one of our ferries.

Mr. Ogden: They chose the "Royal Iris", and I apologise to that ship for calling it a "painted little hussy" in the last debate. It is a Royal ship in every way. But the Royal couple did not use the normal everyday working boats that I call the river ferries. They used the cruise ship.

Mr. Hunt: I am glad that my speech has given the hon. Member an opportunity to withdraw his accusation about its being a painted little hussy. Those words have been in my mind ever since that debate as a phrase of most unnatural consequence. Indeed, I felt that they cast doubt upon the origin of that ship and the adequacy of it. I am pleased that the hon. Gentleman took the opportunity of his intervention to withdraw the phrase.
The hon. Member for West Derby was a privileged person on that occasion, as I was. Both of us were on the "Royal Iris" with Her Majesty The Queen. But everyone else of any consequence in Merseyside was sitting or standing—mainly standing—on the two ferry boats which are used for the ordinary ferry crossing. Those ferry boats were used on that day, and they were part of the flotilla of ships which not only allowed Her Majesty to see Merseyside in all its splendour but allowed a great many of

the residents of Merseyside to see Her Majesty in splendour sailing on the "Royal Iris".
It was a great day for the ferry service on Merseyside. It was a great day because the worth of the ferries was then proved as being very much at the heart of Merseyside. It is a fact that people have been using the ferries for a considerable time. But under the Bill there is to be power to discontinue the ferries. Obviously, when we consider whether to allow the Bill to go forward, we must at the same time consider whether it is right to allow the authorities to have that power to discontinue.
I have tried to explain as best I can the ways in which I regard the Bill as not only inadequate but unnecessarry. One of its least necessary features, in my view, is that power is sought to discontinue ferry services before consideration of the case as to whether it is right to discontinue the Woodside ferry or the Seacombe ferry. Surely that is relevant tonight.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I doubt that it is relevant to argue that. I think that the hon. Gentleman admitted earlier that powers were sought under the Bill to do a certain thing, and the hon. Gentleman read from some of the evidence which was put to the Committee indicating that it was not sought to operate the powers immediately. Therefore, I do not see how the hon. Gentleman can argue that the authorities should have done it the other way round before bringing in the Bill.

Mr. Hunt: Obviously, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I must be guided by you.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: No, not necessarily. The other night, as the hon. Gentleman will recall, he told me how I could get £25 a week for going blind. I am not suggesting that he should dispute anything I said, but I thought that he had disposed of the question whether there was any need to have these ferries. I thought that he had been doing that for the past hour. But if he wishes to go on again and repeat what seem to me to be arguments which he has already adduced, I shall listen to him with care.

Mr. Hunt: As I said, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I am absolutely guided by you. I am now seeking to find out whether


the executive should have this power to discontinue. I have not dealt with whether there is a case for continuing the ferries, but when a Bill seeks such powers, we should debate whether they should be given. Because I wanted to come to it now, I earlier avoided dealing with the question whether there is a case for forgetting the Bill and the discontinuing powers and maintaining the ferry service as it is.
In 1972, the same year as the agreement which looked 10 years ahead, the Executive published a transport plan for Merseyside. It said:
It is felt, therefore, that before a decision is made on the future of the Mersey ferries, a detailed study should be undertaken to assess fully their economic an d social value.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That can still be done if the Bill is passed. Nothing prohibits that being carried out under the Bill.

Mr. Hunt: I agree, but I am questioning the need to seek powers to discontinue.

Mr. Ogden: The hon. Gentleman says that he is questioning the need to seek these powers. I thought that he wi sdiscussing whether we should consider the Bill. I have moved that the Bill be now considered and I gave certain cogent reasons, in seven minutes—

Mr. Heffer: Too long.

Mr. Ogden: Yes it was. Five minutes would have been enough. But I referred specifically to the question whether we should consider the Bill. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will give us the opportunity to do so.

Mr. Hunt: I have now put on my spectacles, so that I can see the facial contortions of the hon. Member for West Derby, which I feel are exaggerated. I am seeking to consider the need for the Bill. I am advised that when one considers a Bill, one is entitled to assess whether it should progress to Third Reading. I was trying to examine the need for the Bill and to show that there is none. I have sought to explain that I do not think that it would be necessary even if there were a decision to close the ferries. I am now seeking to argue that no powers should be sought to close the ferries in any event. I do not think

that I am being too tautologous or oxymoronic in seeking to state my case in that way because there are two separate parts—[HON. MEMBERS: "What does he mean?"] I have been accused tonight of regaling myself with certain periphrastic and other grammatical indulgences. That is the accusation which is thrown at me. I am trying to demonstrate that I am in no way being quixotically chivalrous with words. I am trying to plead my case in parts as separate as possible. It is right to consider now whether we should discontinue the ferries in any event. If the answer to that is that we should not, there is no need for the Bill, even accepting all the hypotheses that I have been posing.
In March 1972, it was demanded, decided and indeed provided that there should be a detailed study. The overall objective of the study was stated to be
To recommend in broad terms a preferred policy for the MPTE to pursue in the provision of surface transport facilities across the River Mersey.
I have been accused of wishing to maintain ferry services on the grounds of sentiment alone. People have said to me, both inside and outside the Chamber, that my real purpose in opposing the Bill or in seeking to delay further consideration is that we do not want to discontinue the ferries because they are part of Merseyside's heritage, because they mean something to the people of Merseyside that cannot easily be replaced.
I feel strongly that this place often does not consider the long-term effects of the decisions it makes. I could cite many cases where we have decided to authorise powers or to grant enabling powers to bodies to discontinue services, to discontinue a whole area of activities, only to discover later that we were totally wrong to grant the power.
I believe that this will be so with the ferries. They are such a part of Merseyside's heritage that it will be a sad day if they are taken away and we wake up one morning and they are not there. Indeed, it was contemplated under the first Bill that if we went away on holiday for a month we would return and find that the ferries had gone. If we were to wake up one morning on Merseyside and discover that we no longer had any ferries across the Merseyside, that would be a sad day for Merseyside—not merely


because of sentiment but because the ferries provide Seacombe and Woodside with an effective means of transport, but they also provide something much deeper. They provide an opportunity to cross the Mersey on the surface.
I am advised that I should be out of order if I were to refer to alternative crossings. Nor can I spend a considerable time talking about whether it was right to build a tunnel and not a bridge across the Mersey. Whatever has happened, there are three modes of crossing the Mersey. In fact, there are four modes. When I travelled recently on the Mersey underground, I said to one of my co-passengers "Which of the three forms of crossing the Mersey do you prefer?" He said "Swimming". I suppose that is a fourth method.

Mr. Loyden: As long as you keep your mouth shut.

Mr. Hunt: The first of the three specific ways of crossing the Mersey is by the tunnel. There are two tunnels now, through Wallasey and underneath Woodside. The second method is by the new loop link line. My poor wife and two children and I this morning tried to negotiate the loop link with almost catastrophic results. In the end we had to run from Liverpool Central to Liverpool Lime Street because that station is not yet open. I say this to demonstrate that there is still a long way to go before we have an effective underground system on Merseyside.

Mr. Heffer: The hon. Gentleman must know that there is a fourth method of crossing the Mersey. That is the way that Bill Shankley often employed—to walk across.

Mr. Hunt: Unlike the hon. Gentleman, I have never been present at one of those exhibitions that I know Mr. Shankley often gave when he was manager of the Royal Liverpool Football Club, as I hope that it will one day become. However, I can imagine from Shankley's prowess that it happened.
We have an Underground system. One asks what the alternative is for somebody—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We cannot start discussing alternatives on this

Bill. There is nothing in the Bill dealing with alternatives. I must ask the hon. Gentleman to refrain from discussing that aspect.

Mr. Hunt: When considering whether it is right to allow a body powers to discontinue ferries, surely one has a right, and it is relevant, to consider what the situation will be once the ferries have gone.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: We must keep the tunnel out of it.

Mr. Hunt: I shall endeavour not to mention the tunnel again.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not substitute the words "subterranean passage".

Mr. Loyden: The hon. Member for Wirral (Mr. Hunt) should not be so reticent about his feelings for the Mersey ferries. As one who travelled to and from Birkenhead twice a day for more than 25 years, I know the general feeling of the people who use the ferries. They regard it as the most acceptable and healthy way of crossing the river.

Mr. Hunt: The fact that you allowed that intervention Mr. Deputy Speaker—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not discuss that intervention. It was entirely out of order.

Mr. Hunt: What will be the consequence if we allow the Bill to pass into legislative effect? The ferries are, in effect, the only surface crossings available to the ordinary person. There is no bridge, and if we removed the two ferry services we should deprive local people of an option. I have carefully avoided the use of the word "alternative" and I shall carefully avoid the word "tunnel". The only other option for these people would be to descend into the depths.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: They could swim.

Mr. Hunt: I am grateful for the penetrating comments that you are making from time to time, Mr. Deputy Speaker. They assist me in understanding the complexities of the Bill. The only option left to the public if the ferries were removed would be to take lifts down into


the Underground. The users of transportation on Merseyside would be deprived of an acceptable alternative.
We have heard much about public expenditure, and I am a member of a party that believes that such expenditure must be cut. It is therefore right to refer to this aspect of the matter. The Merseyside Passenger Transport Executive is losing £19!6 million a. year and the ferries account for £1!1 million of that. To those who seek powers to discontinue the ferries, I say, why pick on them? What is there about the ferries that makes it easy to lop them off the deficit? What is it about them that makes the ferries so vulnerable to procedures such as those in the Bill? I do not know the answer, but perhaps it is because they are an ascertainable part of the transportation system and, in order to reduce the deficit at a stroke, it is easier to pick on the ferries. This is a bad reason.
Before we allow the promoters of the Bill to have the powers that they seek, we should have a full review of the transportation system in Merseyside so that adequate decisions could be made without trying to hide behind the cloud that would descend over the whole operation if the ferry services were chopped and nothing were done to maintain the other operations.
About 20 minutes ago, I was attempting to refer to a study which was affectionately known as the Cranfield study. This is a study of transportation on Merseyside which is in the possession of the promoters of the Bill. It went very carefully into the question whether the ferry should be discontinued and whether there were any arguments for maintaining the ferry services. The report came to some interesting conclusions.
One of the points on which I spoke on Second Reading, and on which I have not yet been satisfied, was that the Cranfield report had not been dealt with adequately, nor had it been followed in any way. If the Bill were to proceed to another place, I would need to be satisfied that its conclusions and recommendations had been gone into very carefully. I very much regret that I have not been thus satisfied.
Discussions that I have had with the promoters of the Bill lead me to believe

that there is a much more urgent and pressing need to have an in-depth, up-to-date, detailed survey of Merseyside's transportation rather than to seek powers through this Bill to discontinue the ferry services.
The Cranfield Report made a number of recommendations that are highly significant to consideration of the Bill. One of its major conclusions was that new, smaller ferries could operate satisfactorily from existing landing stages. I have had an assurance—which I accept—from the Chairman of the Transportation Committee, Mrs. Leech, that this has been gone into very carefully. It would be presumptuous of me to try to say that that is untrue because I have great faith in what she told me.
However, I believe that there are opportunities for smaller boats to carry out the ferry services, which would make this Bill totally unnecessary. That is one of the major points that I seek to put forward. The Cranfield Report went into great detail about whether the loss could have been met. It is the loss which is pleaded in support of the case for allowing the Bill to go forward for consideration, and it is constantly stated that the loss is the one thing that justifies the Bill. The Cranfield Report said that our current vessels offer 1,200 places per vessel. That means that 1,200 people can be carried on a 20-minute service from Seacombe and Woodside, alternately using the one stage at Liverpool, although leaving two separate stages on the Wirral Peninsula side of the Mersey. The report sad that the current maximum peak hour loading never uses more than half the existing capacity, so that never more than 600 people, even at maximum peak time, use the ferry.
The report stated:
Significant reductions in operating costs, basically through smaller crews and simpler terminal procedures, should be possible with the operation of small vessels.
Feasibilty studies have been carried out on the design of 500-place and 200-place vessels, the former being chosen as necessary to cope with maxmum peak loading. The feasibility studies were carried out by a firm in Basingstoke which gave an outline specification for a 500-place vessel. This is gone into carefully in Appendix 12 of the report.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am genuinely sorry at having to intervene in the hon. Gentleman's speech. I have pointed out that it was in order to discuss alternatives to the Bill on Second Reading but that it is not in order to discuss alternatives on the motion for considering the Bill, nor to raise questions of general policy such as, for example, the review of all transportation on Merseyside. I must stick to the ruling that I have given.

Mr. Graham Page: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it an alternative to suggest that smaller ferries rather than the present size ferry could be operating? That is directly connected with the stopping or continuation of the ferries.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: That alternative could have been discussed on Second Reading, but it cannot be discussed now.

Mr. Hunt: Plainly I am bound by your ruling, Mr. Deputy Speaker. but it restricts me considerably and I may not be able to speak for as long as I had hoped. When we are discussing whether we should allow consideration of the Bill, we must call into doubt whether it is right to give these powers. I was seeking to demonstrate—and I am not wishing to proceed along the avenue which you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, have closed for me—that the promoters have not properly prepared the ground for the Bill. It was my intention to refer at length to certain speeches made in Committee, but, in view of the shortness of time, I shall not do so. However, the point was made several times in Committee that the Bill had not been thought through and had not been adequately prepared.
I go further. I believe that the Bill is a legislative nonsense. It has emerged from Committee with provisions and powers for the county council which fall between the two stools about which I have spoken. Either we give the public an effective and proper right to be consulted, or we do not give them any right and say that this is the responsibilty of the local transport executive which should make decisions both as to over-riding and as to the continuance of the ferries.
If we adopt the latter course, there will be no public inquiry at all. We shall do what the Bill originally intended, namely,

to terminate the ferry service on a month's notice.

Mr. Heffer: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the question of discontinuing the ferries should be put to the people in the form of a referendum in the area? Why should not they be allowed to vote on it? It would be a very good idea.

Mr. Ogden: It is attractive to say "Let us ask the people in a referendum''. But the people who want to use the ferries have been using them; the people who do not want to use the ferries have not been using them. There has been a daily referendum by the people who use the ferries and by those who do not. Because so few people use the ferries, they are losing money. Everybody may say that we should keep the ferries, but nobody wants to pay for them.
The hon. Member for Wirral says that this is the business of the executive and that it should get on with it or that there should be an inquiry with appeal to the Secretary of State. He says that those are the alternatives. All that the executive was asked to do on Second Reading was to lay down conditions so that the people of Merseyside could have their say at a public inquiry. Everything that hon. Members asked the executive to do on Second Reading has been done. Now the hon. Gentleman has come up with another series of proposals tonight.
Let us suppose that there is a public inquiry under the authority of the county council. If the inspector says "Keep the ferries" and the county council says "Keep the ferries", will the hon. Member for Wirral still want the matter to be referred to the Secretary of State? If the inspector says "Scrap the ferries", but the county council says "Keep the ferries", will the hon. Gentleman want that to be referred to the Secretary of State? If the inspector says "Keep the ferries" and the county council says "Scrap the ferries", will the hon. Gentleman want that to be referred to the Secretary of State?
Is not the hon. Gentleman's intention simply that he does not want the present controllers of the county council to be left with the responsibility for closing the ferries? He wants that responsibility left with my hon. Friend so that instead of the headlines in the Liverpool Daily Post and Liverpool Echo being "Sir


Kenneth Thompson, Merseyside county council chairman, closes the Mersey ferries" they would be "Minister closes the ferries". If it has anything to do with the newspaper the headlines would be "Labour Minister sinks the ferries". Would the hon. Gentleman say under what terms and conditions he wants the right of appeal to the Secretary of State?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I appeal to the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Ogden) not to make such lengthy interventions, because he is robbing the hon. Member for Wirral (Mr. Hunt) of valuable time to take part in the debate.

Mr. Ogden: I have made the hon. Gentleman three offers, one of which he cannot refuse.

Mr. Hunt: I was rather bemused, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that you were allowing what I felt was an out of order intervention to continue.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The referendum is definitely out of order.

Mr. Hunt: I was going to point out to the hon. Gentleman that in a few days' time, when we come round to discuss the amendments, there is an amendment which provides for the holding of a referendum.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Did the hon. Gentleman say "in a few days' time, when we come to discuss the amendments"? I admire the hon. Gentleman's sense of humour, but in case he is serious about that I would remind him that if we do not do something before 10 o'clock the whole procedure, will fall. Perhaps that is his intention.

Mr. Hunt: As I understand it, Mr. Deputy Speaker, further time might well be found for consideration of this Bill. I am rather saddened that I am so restricted on time. I did not quite appreciate the significance of it.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Will the hon. Gentleman have a referendum on that? Where did he get that information?

Mr. Hunt: I must obviously be guided by the advice that I have received. But, as I understand it, if we are unable to complete all the stages tonight a further date might be set aside. I understand that this is not a matter for the Chair.
It is a matter for the Leader of the House to allocate such a date and then for time to be set aside. In fact, there will be time to discuss Amendment No. 29, which provides for a referendum. I would point out to the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby that paragraph 2 of Amendment No. 29 states:
The persons holding the public inquiry may take any steps to ascertain public opinion that they consider necessary.
I would say to the hon. Member for Walton that I believe that a referendum is an excellent idea, but unfortunately, as I understand, I am prohibited from referring to a matter which falls clearly within the province of one of the amendments to be discussed some time next week, or whatever the day is to be.
I believe that this is very relevant. If a referendum were to be held in Woodside or Seacombe, there is no doubt that there would be an overwhelming majority for keeping the ferries.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I have so far found no reference to a referendum in the amendment, but if there is we shall discuss it when we reach the amendment.

Mr. Hunt: The hon. Member for West Derby raised many other points. I was sad that he once again introduced a political argument. I hope that it will not have gone unnoticed by hon. Members that I have copiously sought not to introduce a political argument into the debate. I believe that the ferries are nonpolitical, indeed apolitical. They are an entity about which all parties in all parts of Liverpool feel strongly. The feelings run very deep.
The hon. Member for West Derby said that my objective was to shield Sir Kenneth Thompson, Chairman of the County Council and to expose the Minister. It would be difficult to expose the Minister who is present at the debate tonight because I understand that it would be the Secretary of State for Transport who would make the decision and who would bear the political consequences. However, I do not think there would be any party political consequences. I believe that whoever decides to maintain or close the ferries will get a reaction that will be profound, immediate and deep, but that it will not be along party political lines.
I was sad to hear the hon. Member for West Derby make a very nasty point about the Liverpool Echo. Having been a reader of that newspaper since the age of one, in 1943, I believe that that journal steadfastly throughout the years has maintained a strictly non-political approach. Indeed, both that newspaper and its sister the Liverpool Daily Post have maintained a dignity in local affairs by seeking not to make party political points about local issues. That casts a slur on the Liverpool Echo and the Liverpool Daily Post. I give the hon. Member for West Derby the opportunity to withdraw his remark, as I feel he should. Since he obviously will not take that opportunity, I indict him for what he said about those newspapers.
The hon. Gentleman went on to say that I had all the assurances which I sought on Second Reading and that they had been responded to in some way or other. I refer the hon. Gentleman to that debate on 24th March 1977. I said to the hon. Member for West Derby:
Are there any assurances for which I asked in my speech that the hon. Member is not prepared to give?
If I had been given an adequate response to that question, my opposition and my speech tonight would have been unnecessary. The hon. Gentleman then replied:
I cannot remember everything that the hon. Member said but I shall carefully read all that was said in the debate and so will members of the MPTE. There will be replies and a continuation of the discussion. This is not my Bill. It is not the Government's Bill and it is not the MPTE's Bill.
One might have asked whose Bill it was. The hon. Gentleman continued
It is the Bill of the hon. Members who represent Merseyside constituencies."—[Official Report, 24th March 1977; Vol. 928, c. 1591–2.
Having had no real agreement to the original Bill, and having presented this shoddy, nondescript Bill which seeks to close down the ferries at only one month's notice, the lion. Gentleman then had the effrontery to seek to foist the Bill on those hon. Members who represent Merseyside constituencies. That was a nonsense, is a nonsense and will be a nonsense if the hon. Gentleman dares to repeat it in this place when seeking to reply to the debate. I made it quite clear on Second Reading that I felt that the provisions for a local inquiry were inade-

quate. You may remember, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that at that time we had in a sort of dossier or appendage to the Bill—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Thankfully I was not in the Chair.

Mr. Hunt: In view of that admission, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I had better go through the lengthy 30-page document—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: It is no use rehearsing the facts to me.

Mr. Hunt: In that case I shall throw away the 30 pages in my notes. I am not saying that I had anticipated your remark, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I was prepared for it.
On Second Reading we had a number of addenda or subsidiary amendments indicated to us in an appendage to the promoters' Bill. We were told what sort of local inquiry was envisaged. I have carefully avoided naming him, but the man I always regarded as being behind the Bill, the now Leader of the Opposition on the Merseyside County Council, described the Bill as providing the sort of local inquiry that is used when local roads are closed. That is probably right. The inquiry procedure that is set out in the Bill provides the same procedure as if someone were closing Wind Street, or whatever street it might be. I have always considered that it is an inadequate procedure. To demonstrate my consistency of approach, I said clearly on Second Reading that I felt strongly that the provisions for a local inquiry were inadequate. I said:
The Merseyside County Council then gets the report from the local inquiry. There is nothing in the Bill that would in any way inhibit Merseyside County Council from receiving a report that says quite clearly that the ferries must not be closed and lays down a whole series of statistics and arguments why they should not be closed "—
[Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The water is with my compliments.

Mr. Hunt: If I had known that the water was with your compliments, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I should have savoured its taste the longer. I am afraid that I rather bolted it. If it were water from the Mersey, I should be happy to drink it,


which is more than I can say for some Labour Members.
On Second Reading I continued:
and then saying It is a very interesting document … and we have read it, but we shall close the ferries."—[Official Report, 24th March 1977; Vol. 928, c. 1567.]
That, I fear, is totally consistent with the arguments that I have endeavoured to put in the time available to me tonight for recognising that the present provisions are inadequate. I have said all along, and I say it again tonight, that if we are seeking to give power to a body, that body has to plead its case effectively. In this instance it has not done so.
The Bill has been before the Committee, but when we examine it we find that there are no real provisions that take into account any of the matters that I raised on Second Reading relating to right of appeal. I indicate my position by a mere reference to an amendment that is to be discussed. I suggested that here should be a two-thirds majority of the council before it could close down the ferries. I felt that that was a reasonable—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: We shall get on to that if we reach the new clause.

Mr. Hunt: I am obliged, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I was going to say that I have since realised that that would be very much an innovation for local government. When we examine the derivation of such a necessity—namely, for a two-thirds majority—there is nothing in the Local Government Act 1972 that provides that decisions shall be made by other than a simple majority.
I have tried, as I did on Second Reading, to put forward as constructive an approach as possible by saying "When you, the promoters of the Bill, decide to close the ferries, you should be asked to accept that, if you make a decision that overturns the recommendations of a full public inquiry, you should do so only if there is a right of appeal to the Secretary of State that can be effectively, easily and cheaply exercised."
I confess that I have been heartened tonight by the amount of support that I have received from hon. Members. I feel that to allow the Bill to be considered without making the points that I have made and that no doubt other hon. Members will wish to make would not give a

proper indication of the profound distaste with which the Bill is viewed in my constituency and on Merseyside.
I have often heard people say that they do not like the county council making a decision, because it consists of members from St. Helen's making a decision about a matter that affects members from the Wirral.
I am glad that the hon. Member for St. Helens is present. I assure him that I do not make that point. I believe that the citizens of St. Helens, just as the citizens of Birkenhead, are interested in the future as it affects the whole of Merseyside, and not only as it affects their particular area. I see Merseyside as having a corporate identity. People are beginning to identify themselves as Merseysiders. Having lived most of my life on Merseyside, I welcome that view.

Mr. Spriggs: I think that the hon. Gentleman got me wrong. I am sorry that he missed the point. I referred to another local authority transport area. In the area where I live the excess fare is charged if anyone travels beyond the distance for which he or she has paid. I have not seen any trouble caused when the staff have called on any member of the public to pay the fare that he or she should have paid.

Mr. Hunt: I welcome that intervention, because it gives me the chance of making clear that I was not referring to the speech by the hon. Member for St. Helens when I said "people say". I was referring to comments made to me in my constituency. In the past it used to be said that the citizens of St. Helens cared only about their area. I am desperately pleased that that is no longer true. Nothing said by the hon. Member for St. Helens tonight removes any impression from me at all. Indeed, I concur with his remarks.
Opposition to the Bill is to be found not only in the House, but largely on both sides of the Mersey. The Wirral District Council—I was pleased to have the opportunity to discuss this matter with its chief executive today—effectively supports what I am seeking to do tonight—namely, to make all the points in a speech that seeks to delay consideration of the Bill. I have had several letters from the Wirral District Council pointing out its attitude and stating that it fears that it


is open to the county council, under the provisions of the Bill, to approve an order for closure of the ferries regardless of the recommendation of an independent inspector.

Mr. Ogden: I wonder whether two hours and a few minutes after the hon. Gentleman's introductory remarks might be a natural break for him to have a little sip of water. I have made him three offers during the course of his remarks. I wonder whether, having had his fun, we could agree that the loss of £3 million is not a matter that our constituents would regard as very funny. Will the hon. Gentleman and hon. Members on both sides of the House who can maintain or destroy the Bill accept an undertaking that I shall use my best endeavours to get an agreed response from all Merseyside Members of Parliament on both sides of the House for the introduction in the other place of an appeals procedure to the Secretary of State where, after a full public inquiry prescribed by the Bill, the inspector recommends continuance of the ferries but the county council recommends discontinuance of the ferries? In these situations, where there is disagreement about the continuation of the ferries, when the inspector says "Keep them" and the county council says "no", I can do no more than say that I shall try to get agreement. It is the only way that I can see of allowing other hon. Members to have their say. The hon. Member for Wirral (Mr. Hunt) has done his duty to his constituents.

Mr. Hunt: I am in a slight embarrassment, because I am a new Member. I do not know how one refers to the existence of people who are sitting in a box and who represent the interests of the promoters. I understand that I should not refer to them at all, and I apologise for doing so. I was seeking to demonstrate to the hon. Member for West Derby that he could walk out of the Chamber, come back and then be able to give a definite undertaking that an appeals procedure will be introduced in the House of Lords.

Mr. Ogden: I have come prepared for any eventuality. I cannot say that the House of Commons will agree to what the MPTE suggested, because I do not know what the right hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Page) would say. I do

not know what the hon. and learned Member for Dover and Deal (Mr. Rees) or the hon. Member for Wallasey (Mrs. Chalker) would say. I do not know what my hon. Friends would say. All I can say is that I shall do my best to get an agreed procedure. That is the way to keep the Bill. It is for the House of Commons to decide.

Mr. Hunt: I seek your guidance, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is not this rather late? The hon. Member for West Derby is seeking to do something that I do not understand. He is asking me to accept his undertaking to consult with hon. Members about an appeals procedure. He has said that this is a matter for the House. I understand that if we consider the Bill tonight and if it then passes to another place there is no provision for further discussion by hon. Members about the consequences of the undertakings that the hon. Member is seeking to give.

Mr. Ogden: We still have Third Reading and Report. There will be time for other hon. Members to say what they have to say. We are deciding tonight whether the Bill should be considered. I have gone as far as I can reasonably go.

Mr. Hunt: Is it possible for amendments to be introduced at Third Reading, Mr. Deputy Speaker? Is it possible for a discussion similar to that which we are having tonight to take place on Third Reading and for the hon. Member to introduce amendments?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Member for Wirral (Mr. Hunt) will have to satisfy himself that the offer being made by the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Ogden) is acceptable. It is a matter for him to decide.

Mr. Heffer: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Where can such an amendment be moved and accepted? If there is no provision, there is no point in discussing it.

Mr. Ogden: On Second Reading there was a feeling that some changes should be made. I gave certain undertakings and each was carried through with the exception of one. If the hon. Member for Wirral will allow the Bill to go to Report we shall consider all the voices at that


stage and on Third Reading. Third Reading would be the time to save or to kill the Bill, and not at present.

Mr. Graham Page: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am not prepared to withdraw my opposition to the Bill while it still includes provisions for on-the-spot fines.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: If the hon. Member for Wirral (Mr. Hunt) is genuinely anxious to help the promoters of the Bill, I think that I ought to indicate, in regard to the suggestion made by the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby as to where amendments could be made, that it would be in the other place, and such amendments could come back here for consideration. That would be the position.

Mr. Hunt: I am very grateful indeed, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for that guidance, because I was becoming very confused. As for my opposition to the Bill—and, as I understand it, the opposition of many other people—if the hon. Member for West Derby will confirm that amendments will be introduced in the other place to give effect to a right of appeal to the Secretary of State—as exists in the Wallasey Corporation Act—and to allow such a procedure relating to the Seacombe ferry and the Woodside ferry, I will withdraw my opposition to the Bill. In giving such an undertaking, the hon. Gentleman would be promising me not that the amendments would be passed but merely that they would be introduced by the promoters. It is not for me to say how the other place would consider those amendments, or whether it would approve them. However, the objectivity of the other place gives me confidence that it would accept the amendments.
If the hon. Gentleman cares to stroll from the Chamber for one moment he may get the assurance that he needs. If he undertakes that such amendments will be introduced, my opposition falls, although I cannot speak for other hon. Members.

Mr. Ogden: Exactly. In order to help the Bill, as I see it, I give that undertaking to the hon. Gentleman, but immediately someone else bobs up and says "That is exactly the reason why I shall kill the Bill." I am trying to promise

only what I can reasonably perform. That is the maxim. Certainly in the other place the hon. Member's predecessor as Member for Wirral would have a very strong voice. I can promise only what I am capable of performing. I shall do my best to make sure that this is introduced. I may upset half a dozen other people, if this is introduced. They may say "That is the reason why we shall destroy the Bill". I cannot take a straw poll or hold a referendum at present, although perhaps hon. Members will nod. Alternatively, I offer a rhetorical question. Arc the Merseyside Members of Parliament who happen to be present tonight in favour of or opposed to the idea of a procedure being introduced in the other place which would bring in, in the circumstances that I have described, an appeal to my right lion. Friend the Secretary of State? One, two, three, four, five—

Mr. Hunt: Perhaps I may respond. As I understand it, an hon. Member cannot seek to secure interventions in another hon. Member's speech. I am quite prepared now to accept an intervention if there is another hon. Member in this place who disagrees with me about the proposal that I am seeking to put into the Bill, namely, that there should be a right of appeal to the Secretary of State from a local inquiry, held locally on Merseyside, from the decision of the Merseyside County Council. If there is such an hon. Member present, I am willing to allow him to intervene. Apparently there is not such an hon. Member present.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I think that the hon. Member for Wirral had better continue with his argument.

Mr. Ogden: Mr. Ogden rose—

Mr. Hunt: I am again terribly confused.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: There is no confusion. There seems to be a lack of desire to co-operate. Mr. Hunt—to get on.

Mr. Loyden: Would the hon. Member agree that the case put by my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Ogden) concerning consultations was on the basis that a suitable arrangement would be found to deal with the point


about an inquiry? Would he further agree that the evasive way in which this has been dealt with means that my hon. Friend could not secure such an undertaking in another place?

Mr. Hunt: That, in a nutshell, crystallises all the confusion that I have suffered tonight. I seek your guidance, Mr. Deputy Speaker, about the validity of an undertaking given by the hon. Member moving consideration of this Bill. Is that an undertaking that the House can accept?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I cannot possibly help the hon. Gentleman. I am not an expert on confusion.

Mr. Ron Thomas: Surely the hon. Gentleman knows that the other place is typical of the Tory Party. Only it can decide what the other place will do.

Mr. Hunt: I know the hon. Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Thomas). Suffice it to say that I recognise that he is just the sort of person who would make that kind of remark.
In the first five minutes of my speech I said that if I were to receive an undertaking tonight on behalf of the promoters of the Bill to the effect that they would introduce clauses to give effect to a right of appeal to the Secretary of State my opposition would fall. I cannot speak for other hon. Members. If I received an undertaking that the promoters would introduce such clauses for consideration by the other place—

Mr. Ogden: Let me spell it out quite clearly. I introduced this Bill because I thought that it was in the good interests of our constituents on Merseyside. I have used my best endeavours to get the Bill through and made offers that I thought were reasonable. I shall not crawl to the hon. Gentleman to do what I believe to be right for his own constituents.

Mr. Hunt: I was not seeking to descend to that level. I disregard that intervention.
Wirral District Council has said clearly that it feels strongly, following a resolution of its Policy and Resources Committee, that opposition to the Bill should be maintained. That is because, although

the council raises no objection to the Bill in principle it feels that there should be an amendment to require any closure to be subject to the approval of the Secretary of State following a local public inquiry. I get strong support from the council about my attitude towards the Bill. The council represents a large part of the Wirral peninsula, which includes my constituency. The council has resolved to move a petition against the Bill, to be raised in the other place. The petition seeks to establish what I seek to establish tonight.
It states that the ferries:
form an important means of communication across the River Mersey between the Borough of Wirral and the City of Liverpool and have been of considerable benefit to the inhabitants in the borough, some of whom regularly use the ferries as a means of travelling to and from work. Moreover, frequent journeys across that river are made by means of the ferries for commercial, shopping and recreational purposes. The ferries accordingly provide a valuable amenity to the inhabitants of the borough. They have operated over a considerable period of time and were, for a great many years, owned and operated under statutory authority by local authorities in the Wirral peninsula who were predecessors of the present council.
They recognise that for financial or other reasons there may be justification for relieving the Executive or some or all of their statutory or other obligations in relation to either or both of the ferries. Accordingly, they raise no objection to such additional power being enacted as may be necessary to enable the removal of those obligations to be authorised if the circumstances justify it, provided such authorisation is made subject to appropriate safeguards.
Indeed, the authority points that
One of the Borough's predecessors in title obtained the requisite powers in connection with Section 158 of the Wallasey Corporation Act 1958 in relation to the Seacombe ferry, the repeal of which section is provided for in the Bill.
With reference to that section, the authority points out, as I have pointed out already in this debate, that the Act contains powers to enable the Secretary of State to hold a local inquiry before deciding whether to grant his consent. It submits
that there is no need for the promotion of the Bill so far as it relates to the Seacombe Ferry since the powers already exist in the form and with the safeguards already approved by Parliament.
It accepts that
further powers are needed in relation to the Woodside Ferry but submits that they should


be in the form now available for and applicable to the Seacombe Ferry.
So I get support in that petition for exactly what I have been seeking to do in this debate. I am seeking to ensure that not only my constituents but the constituents of a large number of other Merseyside Members have not just a right to be heard about their ferry but they have a right to be heard effectively about their ferry. Time and again, I have stressed that what I seek to inject into this debate is a sense of realism about the consequences of the provisions as they at present exist in the Bill.
If that local inquiry is held, how can those participating in it feel that it has any relevance, any significance or any power when they know that if they win the day in the inquiry it will be a Pyrrhic victory—a victory that has no consequence, because the county council by a simple majority can override that decision, which it has sought so hard to secure at the local inquiry?
Is it equitable that we should allow to proceed a Bill that seeks to take away from the public a right of appeal to the Secretary of State, that seeks to take away from the public, by repealing that provision in the Wallasey Corporation Act, something that safeguards its powers and its opinion?
Too much legislation goes out of this place—I still seek to be non-party-political, as I have been throughout my speech—which deprives the individual of his rights without securing for him a right of redress. There is too much legislation that denies the ordinary man in the street his right to be heard effectively. Of that we should all be ashamed. If it were passed, the Bill would become one more Act of Parliament which did just that, taking away another right from the public. Surely, my constituents have not only a right to be heard at the local inquiry but a right to seek that all that they fought for at such an inquiry should be given effect to and countenanced. That is what I am asking for.
I have been persuaded by my hon. Friends that I should withdraw all my amendments if I obtained a simple undertaking about that there would be a right of appeal to the Secretary of State. I have always tried to be as reasonable as I can, but in trying to represent the

views of my constituents I must have some regard to ensuring that their opinions are taken into account.
As I have said, after an inquiry which might last months, after the costs of representation of the Friends of the Ferries and the many other bodies on Merseyside and elsewhere which are interested, are we saying that the county council can override the decision? We have spent so much time trying to ensure the independence of the inquiry. The promoters have at least met one point by ensuring that the chairman shall be appointed only after the district councils as well as the county council have unanimously approved him, but what is the point when his independent decision can be overridden by a party to the case which has lost? That is what the Bill seeks.

Mr. Loyden: Does the hon. Gentleman know to what extent this matter was discussed by the county council before the Bill was introduced?

Mr. Hunt: The hon. Gentleman is right to make that point. I seek to make no criticism of the Labour council which introduced the Bill, although in view of the tenor of the debate and the hon. Member's comments, perhaps I am wrong to avoid party political argument. However, there was inadequate consultation. Perhaps that is why the Bill is inadequate and nonsensical. If more thought had been given to it, we might not have had to discuss it tonight.
It has been said that I seek to kill the Bill. Thank goodness no one has inaccurately said that I am filibustering. I have tried throughout to maintain a reasoned approach, dealing with all the arguments made during the debate as they have arisen.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I do not know where the arguments have come from. No one else has taken part in the debate except the Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Hunt: I have had many interventions. If you do not regard them as contributions, Mr. Deputy Speaker, you underestimate their effect. Particularly those from the hon. Members for Garston and Walton has been highly relevant.
The result of it all is a Bill badly drafted and based on inadequate consultation. The Committee has done its best,


but its abilities were curtailed by a lengthy dispute about the 1972 agreement. We are entitled to ask why there has been such inadequate forethought. This is a shoddy and shameful Bill. No one has persuaded me that it is not a means of closing down our ferries at a month's notice. That is what it provided originally. Ever since it emerged in that form I have doubted the real intention of the MPTE to keep ferries across the Mersey. The supporters of the ferries do not have to prove that they should be maintained. It is up to those who seek to take the ferry services away to prove their case. After the introduction of the Bill, the attitude has been all along that my hon. Friends and I have to prove that the ferries should continue. Surely those who seek to discontinue the ferries should have to prove their case.

Mr. Loyden: Is it not a fact and more important, particularly in view of recent happenings in regard to the Mersey railway and the loop line, that the people of Merseyside are entitled to see an efficient, acceptable and workable alternative before the ferry services are discontinued? People have doubts whether the alternative provision will be effective and efficient. Therefore, it is right for people to argue that the ferries should not be discontinued until alternative provision has clearly been made.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I rule that intervention absolutely out of order. We are not dealing with alternatives.

Mr. Hunt: Then I cannot comment, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: That was the purpose of my ruling. I did not want the intervention to be helpful and allow the hon. Gentleman to continue until 10 o'clock.

Mr. Hunt: I am grateful for your advice, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
I end where I began. The point that I have been trying to make in the time available to me is that the Bill is unnecessary. There is adequate power to discontinue the Seacombe ferry already on the statute book in the Wallasey Corporation Act 1958. That power was used to discontinue the New Brighton ferry.

There was no great public outcry at that time that the wrong procedure had been followed, that it had all taken too long. If a procedure has been found to be effective, as it was in the case of New Brighton, why change the procedure? I still have my suspicions that those who seek to promote the Bill do so with a view to terminating the ferry services at one month's notice without adequate public consultation.
If the Leader of the House were unable to provide any more time for discussion of my amendments—if they cannot be discussed tonight—and the Bill were to fall, what would be the consequences? I say that the consequences would be very few. I believe that we should consider the Bill at length, because, and solely because, we are debating a Bill that is unnecessary. Therefore, if we cannot demonstrate by the adequacy of our speeches that the Bill itself is inadequate, we are failing in our duty to our constituents.

Mr. Ogden: I am in some doubt who the hon. Gentleman means by "we". There has been only one speaker so far. I believe that the hon. Gentleman is the most expensive Member for Wirral in the history of the constituency. He is costing it about £1 million an hour. He is right to use the procedures of the House in a cause about which he feels strongly. Whether he thinks that it is democratic to do so is for him to decide. He has done a good job, according to his lights. Is it not time that we reached a decision whether to consider the Bill? If the hon. Gentleman will not agree with that, the responsibility will be his and that of his hon. Friends, but it will be predominantly his.

Mr. Hunt: Obviously I always, Mr. Deputy Speaker—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not appeal to me for guidance on that matter.

Mr. Hunt: I received a tremendous amount of guidance from you tonight, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for which I am extremely grateful. I understand that it is not in order for me to comment on the adequacy of the guidance unless I am praising it, but I do so without any qualification.
The hon. Member for West Derby said that I had not permitted others to participate in the debate, but I was not aware of any great feeling against my talking for what 1 consider, given the complexity of the subject, to be a relatively short time. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I am grateful to hear that hon. Members concur in that view.
I am trying to demonstrate that the Bill is unnecessary. I have already shown that there is adequate power to discontinue the Seacombe ferry and I believe that it would be quite easy for the Merseyside County Council and the MPTE to carry out a feasibility study

Whereupon Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER declared that the Question was not decided in the affirmative, because it was not supported by the majority prescribed by Standing Order No. 31 (Majority for Closure).

Question again proposed, That the Bill, as amended, be now considered.

9.52 p.m.

Mr. Hunt: As I was saying before the Division, this has been a very interesting

on the Woodside ferry. Nothing in the Act that governs that ferry relates to the adequacy, frequency or cost of the service. It would be open to the executive—

Mr. Ogden: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. There comes a time when I have to go bank or broke. I beg to move, That the Question be now put.

Question put, That the Question be now put:—

The House divided: Ayes 60, Noes 38.

Division No. 190]
AYES
[9.41 p.m.


Armstrong, Ernest
Horam, John
Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)


Atkinson, Norman
Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)
Snape, Peter


Bishop, Rt Hon Edward
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Spriggs, Leslie


Booth, Rt Hon Albert
Hunter, Adam
Stallard, A. W.


Butler, Mrs Joyce (Wood Green)
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)


Canavan, Dennis
Kerr, Russell
Stoddart, David


Concannon, J. D.
Lamond, James
Strang, Gavin


Cowans, Harry
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)


Cryer, Bob
Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)
Tinn, James


Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiteh)
McCartney, Hugh
Urwin, T. W.


Deakins, Eric
McElhone, Frank
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)


de Freitas, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Maclennan, Robert
Walker, Terry (Kingswood)


Eadie. Alex
Milian, Rt Hon Bruce
Whitlock, William


Evans, John (Newton)
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Ewing, Harry (Stirling)
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Woodall, Alec


Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)
Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King
Woof, Robert


Grant, George (Morpeth)
Noble, Mike



Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Parker, John
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)
Pavitt, Laurie
Mr. Eric Ogden and


Harper, Joseph
Pendry, Tom
Mr. Richard Crawshaw


Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)



Hooley, Frank
Small, William





NOES


Allaun, Frank
Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)
Shersby, Michael


Bates, Alf
Jopling, Michael
Skinner, Dennis


Beith, A. J.
Lawson, Nigel
Smith, Timothy John (Ashfield)


Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Loyden, Eddie
Spearing, Nigel


Cormack, Patrick
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Sproat, lain


Crouch, David
Meyer, Sir Anthony
Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)


Dodsworth, Geoffrey
Mills, Peter
Thorne, Stan (Preston South)


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Newens, Stanley
Welder, David (Clitheroe)


Dykes. Hugh
Newton, Tony
Ward, Michael


Fletcher, Alex (Edinburgh, N)
Penhaligon, David
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch



Fookes, Miss Janet
Rees, Peter (Dover &amp; Deal)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Forman, Nigel
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)
Mr. Graham Page and


Heffer, Eric S.
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)
Mr. David Hunt

debate. I have tried to be as constructive as possible. I hope that those who seek to promote the Bill will recognise that from the outset—indeed, on Second Reading—I have sought to ensure provision for adequate consultation of the public. It is wrong to remove provisions to repeal existing enactments which allow for a proper public inquiry with an appeal to the Secretary of State and not replace them with something as effective or more effective in gauging public opinion.

As I said before the closure, I do not believe that there will be any serious consequences as a result of the failure of the Bill to be considered tonight. I hope that time will be provided on another day to continue this very interesting debate. However, as I have said, I believe that there is no necessity for the Bill. It is badly drafted legislative nonsense. Many aspects of it are positively detrimental. But, above all, it is not necessary for safeguarding considerations of public expenditure or the people using the transport system in Merseyside. The Bill has a large number of defects and I have sought to oppose them, but I have tried to put in their place better provisions to safeguard public opinion and the need to provide for effective public opinion.

If the Bill does not reach the statute book, the consequences will not be serious. I have stressed time and again that there is provision for closure of the Seacombe ferry. I am bemused by the fact that the Bill was thought necessary at all, especially with regard to the Seacombe ferry. In fact, as I have tried to demonstrate, there is already adequate provision for the closure of the Seacombe ferry, but only after there has been a public inquiry and only after there is an appeal to the Secretary of State.

The MPTE could tomorrow, whether or not this Bill gets on to the statute book, seek to make an order discontinuing the Seacombe ferry. But it can do so only provided that there is adequate consultation for the public. The MPTE could tomorrow decide—I hope that it does—to conduct an in-depth study into the ferry services and, indeed, the whole transportation system on Merseyside. If it does, I hope that it will find some constructive way of keeping Liverpool's ferry services.

Mr. Leyden: I well understand the hon. Gentleman emphasising the ferry situation and pointing out that the legislation, with regard to ferries, is not necessary. For those hon. Members who are concerned with the provisions in the Bill dealing with over-riding, will the hon. Gentleman say whether he considers that this legislation is necessary? This is an important question.

Hon. Members: Hear, hear.

Mr. Hunt: I am very pleased to hear so many hon. Members assent to that

point of view because it is precisely the one that I have tried to press in the time which has been available to me. I have felt throughout that proper thought has not gone into the Bill. I have tried to describe what the consequences would be if the Bill does not proceed. In doing so I have tried to demonstrate that the consequences are not harmful in any way to the users, the transportation system, the taxpayers or the ratepayers because Seacombe ferry can be closed down. The ferry services as such can be varied. The times, the castings, the fares, can be changed without the need to come to this place.
I am concerned to ensure that we maintain a "Ferry 'cross the Mersey" for as long as we possibly can. As long as I am a Member of this House I want to see a "Ferry 'cross the Mersey", not just for sentimental reasons but because I believe that the ferries provide a service which the users of the service at present, as well as my constituents and those of other hon. Members—indeed, the people of Merseyside—wish to retain.
The ferries are part of our Merseyside heritage. To wipe them away at a stroke, as the Bill originally sought to do, is a disgraceful misuse of parliamentary time. I have tried to moderate my language tonight. [Interruption.] I hear a leaf rustling from below the Gangway. It is something that I shall treasure for many years to come because throughout the debate I have found the interventions of hon. Members, whether from a sedentary or from an upright position, to be extremely helpful. I pay tribute to all those hon. Members for making adequate points.
But it comes back to the fact that this House should not allow to be considered tonight a Bill which deprives the public of an effective right to make their voices heard. As I have said, I have tried to be as reasonable as possible throughout the debate. If at any stage I had received the undertaking that I sought I would have sat down well satisfied. I hope that when we continue the debate we shall have a Bill worthy of the title Merseyside Passenger Transport Bill—

It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.

Debate to be resumed upon Thursday.

EUROPEAN COMMUNITY (PESTICIDES)

Mr. Speaker: Before I call the Minister I must remind the House that the Commission documents deal primarily with chemical substances, and I hope that hon. Members will stay within the rules of order. The documents exclude medicinal products, radioactive materials and explosives. They do not deal with precautionary procedures for dangerous substances, nor with safety at work, other than handling precautions, nor with broad questions of environmental pollution.

10.0 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Gavin Strang): I beg to move,
That this House takes note of Commission Documents Nos. R/89/75, R/1643/75, R/2026/76, R/2027/76 and R/2203/76 on Pesticides, Plant Protection and Packaging and Labelling.
I am sure, Mr. Speaker, that your advice at the outset of the debate will be helpful for the purposes of discussion.
The Government welcome the decision of the Scrutiny Committee to recommend these documents for debate in view of the interest and concern both in the House and in the country generally about the safeguards necessary to ensure that chemicals vital for plant protection and for various industrial purposes can be marketed and used safely. I would also like to thank the Committee for its careful study of this fairly technical subject and for drawing to the attention of the House a number of matters of importance in the four proposals.
May I start with the three pesticides proposals, since this is my own Departmental territory. These three draft directives aim to harmonise in various ways arrangements within the Community for labelling, packaging and marketing. The Government support the basic objectives of these measures, which correspond closely with the policy adopted by successive Administrations for many years past and implemented through the non-statutory Pesticides Safety Precautions Scheme under the auspices of the expert and independent Advisory Committee on Pesticides. The Government have long

regarded comprehensive labelling and secure packaging as essential for the safeguarding of human and animal health and the wider environment, and have consistently pursued a policy of withdrawing the more persistent pesticides from the market when satisfactory alternatives become available. Beyond safety considerations, we welcome the prospect of freer trade within the Community which should flow from some measure of harmonisation of these arrangements.
Turning now to the individual proposals, Document R/89/75 would introduce Community requirements for toxicity classification, packaging and labelling of pesticides for the purpose of avoiding risk to human and animal health. The main feature would be the introduction of symbols which, while slightly different from the symbols widely used in transport and which I would have preferred to see in the directives, clearly indicate the hazards of the more dangerous pesticides. Power to introduce symbols of this sort already exists in the United Kingdom under the Farm and Garden Chemicals Act 1967, which owes its place on the statute book to the efforts of my hon. Friend the Member for Wood Green (Mrs. Butler). The Regulations made under that Act did not provide for symbols because it did not seem sensible to apply symbols until there was agreement on a Community-wide system. As my hon. Friend said when the regulations were debated, they have very little meaning without the symbols, and we welcome the Community initiative here. We also welcome the move which the draft directive represents towards the standardisation of label phrases, which we hope in due time will go wider than the Community itself.
One element in the Commission proposal is of concern to us, and that is the need to retain some flexibility in the choice of cautionary phrases so that the present high standard of labelling in the United Kingdom is not threatened. For us, good labelling is the key to pesticides safety.
Turning now to Document R/2026/76, hon. Members will be aware that this provides a system whereby pesticides bearing the E-mark of Community approval, given on the basis of defined safety and efficacy tests, would be guaranteed free


circulation throughout the Common Market. This system would work in parallel with existing national schemes, though the Commission has complete harmonisation as an ultimate aim.
As I have already said, the Government welcome the prospect of freer trade in pesticides, but we have several reservations on the details of the scheme in its present form. Some of these points are noted in the Scrutiny Committee's report. For example, we recognise the need to provide safeguards for the confidentiality of information provided by manufacturers in applying for the E-mark and to afford some right of appeal against its withdrawal.
Furthermore, some drafting amendments will be needed to iron out discrepancies between this directive and Document R/89/75, though I would comment here that some of the apparent anomalies are due to the fact that the scope of the two directives differs slightly. Finally, we share the Scrutiny Committee's view that the list of chemicals for the E-mark needs to be comprehensive and up to date. Many of our reservations are shared by our partners, and we expect to reach agreement in due course on a workable basis for implementing this system.
The third pesticide proposal, Document R/2027/76, would provide for the banning of certain persistent pesticides in the organochlorine and mercurial groups, though derogations would allow continued use of particular compounds on particular crops. In the United Kingdom the consistent policy of successive Administrations has been progressively to reduce the use of persistent pesticides by withdrawing them from the market as and when effective alternatives become available. That policy stems from the considered scientific judgment of the Government's Advisory Committee.
In the 1960s the Committee twice reviewed the organochlorine group of pesticides. The conclusion of the second review in 1969, which was accepted by the Government of the day, was that, although certain organochlorine compounds were present in the environment, there was no evidence that this was having adverse effects on man. Nevertheless, the Committee regarded their presence,

even at low concentrations, as undesirable. It therefore called for all remaining uses of these compounds to be kept under review through the machinery of the Pesticides Safety Precautions Scheme and recommended that less persistent pesticides should be substituted wherever —and as soon as—possible.
In principle, therefore, the Commission's draft directive follows a policy practised in the United Kingdom for many years. Essentially our approach is that chemical accumulations of this kind should be reduced and, where practicable, avoided altogether, even though they may not present any health risk. However, there are several features of the Commission's current draft where we have reservations. Thus, the "derogations" list of permitted uses of these compounds is not, in our view, adequate, nor do we subscribe to the proposal that some of these derogations should have prescribed time limits.
I am sure hon. Members would agree that we should not lightly take any steps which would have an adverse effect on our agricultural and horticultural production by removing prematurely necessary safeguards against pests. Further, while we can look to research establishments to come up with effective substitutes, it would be unrealistic to predetermine the time scale within which they will do so. I might add that other member countries have parallel reservations on the adequacy of the derogations list and share our misgivings about time limits.
Another area of concern is that the present draft would allow further bans to be imposed by a majority voting procedure. Whatever the merits of majority voting, hon. Members may agree that it would not seem an appropriate method for deciding on measures which may affect Member States quite differently depending on different farming systems or pests to which differing crops may be exposed.
A final point of concern to the Government arises in relation not to the text of the proposal but rather to the method by which it is to be implemented. As hon. Members know, our present effective and workable arrangements for the control of pesticides are based on a non-statutory


approach—and this contrasts with legislative controls to be found in most other member States. The success of our approach has recently been acknowledged in another place and earlier in the Nature Conservancy Council's recent publication "Nature Conservation and Agriculture". The Treaty of Rome leaves to the discretion of individual member States the "form and methods" for the implementation of directives. I am sure that hon. Members will be glad to know that the Government see the current safety scheme as a natural vehicle for operating our safeguards within a European regime which would flow from agreed proposals under this draft directive.
I turn now from pesticides to Document R/2023/76, which is a proposal for the sixth modification to a directive first adopted in 1967, on the classification, packaging and labelling of dangerous substances. With only minor exceptions, the proposals on labelling consolidate earlier amendments to the original 1967 directive and are already in force. The major purpose of the labelling provision is to require suppliers of some 800 dangerous chemicals to attach labels to their products warning workpeople of the hazards involved in their use. The label will carry one or more danger symbols and a number of phrases warning of the principal risks and giving advice on suitable safety precautions. These labels are a useful measure of protection for workpeople and, because they are identical except for language throughout the Community, make it easier for exporters to market their products within the Community. For these reasons the United Kingdom welcomed this directive on our accession to the Community. The Health and Safety Commission published a consultative document a year ago in the form of draft regulations aimed at implementing the directive as currently amended. After wide consultations these have been re-drafted and were submitted a month ago to my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Employment and for Prices and Consumer Protection as legislative proposals in the form of a draft statutory instrument.
With the exception of a few points of detail, the labelling provisions of this amending directive are identical with provisions already in force and about to

be implemented within the United Kingdom and, therefore, have my full support.
More significantly, however, the sixth amendment introduces a number of new concepts. The first of these is embodied in proposals for a notification scheme which would require manufacturers to carry out a series of tests before marketing to indentify hazards to man and the environment and to send the results to a "competent authority" in the member State. The information to be provided would include the identity of the substance, its physical and chemical properties, the results of toxicological and eco-toxicological studies and data on utilisation, including proposed use and estimated production.
The national authority would consider the dossier supplied and examine the adequacy of the proposals put forward for safe use. At the same time, it would be required to pass to the Commission a copy of the notification dossier with any relevant comments.
The Commission would then pass extracts of the information to other member States and maintain a catologue of all substances notified. The Commission, through the medium of a technical progress committee, would be able to modify the details of the information required from notifiers.
Some of that information would be of considerable value to potential competitors, and the United Kingdom view is that these proposals should be approached with caution.
The present draft would allow controls to be imposed on a substance by a majority voting procedure, and hon. Members may again agree that we should view with caution this extension of powers.
To sum up, I hope I have made it clear that the Government are in sympathy with the general aims of all four of the Commission's proposals. We shall be seeking changes of detail where United Kingdom interests need to be protected or where changes are needed to secure that new arrangements are workable. With our record on the safe use of chemicals and of concern for the environment, I believe that we have much to offer our partners in developing these


initiatives. On this basis, I commend the proposals to the House.

10.13 p.m.

Mr. Michael Jopling: We are grateful to the Parliamentary Secretary for the detailed explanation that he has given of the import of these documents and of the Government's attitude to them. At first sight, these documents may have appeared to be fairly mundane. Having read the submissions made by outside interests, I am sure that the Scrutiny Committee has done right in recommending that the House should consider them in greater detail.
Before making individual points, I must declare my interest as a farmer who buys and uses many of these preparations.
The Opposition generally welcome these proposals. It is becoming increasingly recognised throughout the country just how dangerous these substances can be if used indiscriminately or abused. One reads of far too many accidents and hears far too many stories about how dangerous chemicals, such as these, are stored in silly places and ways. Over the years one has heard of the tragedies caused; for example, by chemicals being kept after use in mineral water bottles. One has heard of the death of children after some of these chemicals, many of which have a dark brown hue and, therefore, a similarity to Coca-Cola, being kept in Coca-Cola bottles. It is not surprising that children have been known to drink that substance with dire and fatal effect.
These substances are being increasingly used on farms. They are found around the countryside. I was told recently that on arable farms the cost of spraying corn crops is as high as £15 an acre. Recently we have seen a striking growth in the use of aerial spraying. That puts a new dimension on the danger of these products.
I have read submissions made by outside interests on the proposed directives. There is general support for the way in which we have operated safeguards over the use of such substances. As the Minister of State said, we have the Pesticides Safety Precautions Scheme and the Agriculture Chemical Approval Scheme. I hope that in general we need not stray too far from the way in which these

schemes have worked. I was interested to see that in one of the submissions the National Farmers Union said:
The EEC legislation should allow the very satisfactory system in operation in this country to continue.
I hope that whatever regulations are finally brought in within the Community will go as far as the present schemes which have worked in the United Kingdom. Otherwise, there will be dangers from the proposal. However, I hope that the regulations do not go much further, because that would lead to excessive and unnecessary bureaucracy.
If the proposals were to go further—and I recognise that in some cases they should and that that would be welcome —I hope that they will still be able to be operated in a way similar to, if not the same as, that in the Pesticides Safety Precautions Scheme, which might be modified to embrace the new proposals.
Having read the Minister's explanatory memorandum on the documents I find that there seem to be few changes in the way that the Pesticides Safety Precautions Scheme operates. The proposed directives are acceptable to the Opposition. The present position was summed up in the submission by the British Agrochemicals Association in 1975 when it talked of the enviable safety record of the United Kingdom.
There are a number of points which have to be dealt with. There is some confusion about what is included in the documents. The explanatory memorandum of Document R/89/75 is not clear about the, scope of the document as it affects non-agricultural products, particularly wood preservatives. When one reads Article 2 of that document one finds it difficult to define what are pesticides. Article 2(b) refers to substances which are designed
to render harmless or to destroy or to give protection against vermin or animal or insect pests not classed as plant pests.
This matter caused me some confusion when I read it. I should have thought that under the heading of paragraph 6 would have been included some products that are widely used in agriculture, particularly with regard to animal welfare. I am thinking of chemicals that are used to control such pests as the warble fly and liver fluke, and chemicals that are


used in sheep dips. There is here a very difficult margin of definition, to which I should like the Parliamentary Secretary to refer.
At the beginning of the debate, Mr. Speaker, you told us that these documents do not cover medicines. However, I am not sure whether veterinary products are classified as medicines or whether they come within the scope of these regulations. It would be helpful if the Minister would say something about what the definitions really mean. I am not sure where a medicine becomes a veterinary product and I am not sure what sheep dip chemicals or chemicals to control warble fly or liver fluke might be. I should be grateful to hear something about that.

Mr. W. E. Garrett: The hon. Gentleman has declared and admitted an interest in warble fly. Surely he must know its root cause in the hides. He must also know, as I do, that there are certain medicines that fall on the fringe between what is good for the human being and what is good for the animal. Would he be prepared to state the Conservative Party's attitude on that matter?

Mr Jopling: I am not quite sure what the hon. Gentleman means when he asks me to declare my party's attitude. All that I can say is that if the substances do good to animal and human health, as opposed to sin, we are in favour of them.

Mr. Garrett: We are considering EEC documents and the hon. Member is a very fervent advocate of EEC policies. Perhaps he would explain his party's attitude, and, indeed, the EEC's attitude on the matter.

Mr. Jopling: That is just what I am trying to do. I am trying to get the Minister, who presumably has been involved in talks, or his officials have been so involved, with the Community over these matters to tell us what is meant in these borderline cases between the substances about which we are talking and the pesticides when there is a difficulty at the margin as to whether they are medicines, veterinary products or pesticides. I do not really understand it. I am sure that the hon. Member for Wall-send (Mr. Garrett) has been carefully listening, but I was trying to ascertain

from the Minister what exactly is the case where there are borderline issues. But perhaps I have not understood the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Garrett: I am sure that my hon. Friend the Minister, who is a very intelligent fellow, would be very interested to hear the hon. Gentleman's detailed views, as an expert on agriculture, on the two subjects that he has mentioned.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I know that the hon. Gentleman is an intelligent fellow, but, at the same time, I hope now that he will be allowed to continue.

Mr. Jopling: I had better have a word with the hon. Member for Wallsend later.
I should like now to deal with the particular points that the Select Committee felt merited the attention of the House. Firstly, the Select Committee suggested that in the submissions it had received there appeared to be discrepancies over warnings given on labels. The Consumers Association has drawn attention to this and has questioned the different methods of determining toxicity. It is very important that we know what we are talking about when we assess the level of toxicity of these substances. There are three methods proposed in Annexes I, II, and III as ways of determining toxicity. The Consumers Association is right to say that this is a source of confusion. It would be helpful if the Minister could say a little more about this in his reply.
The next point to which the Select Committee drew our attention was the need for derogations for minor uses of substances banned under Document R/2027/76, for which no economical alternative exists. On all sides we must welcome steps to ban the use of certain substances which create serious risks to man. In the United Kingdom over the years we have not flinched from doing this. I can speak with feeling about this because there is still a degree of infuriation in my constituency that a previous Government, I think a Conservative Government, in the early 1960s banned two substances, aldrin and dieldrin, the demise of which are still mourned by my constituents. It must be right to ban those substances.
The explanatory memorandum of Document R/2027/76 talks of derogations


given for exemptions for the export of these substances to third countries. This causes me serious concern. Is this wise? If there are substances which we feel it unsafe to use in this country and throughout the rest of the Community, ought we to allow them to go to unsuspecting third countries? I find this an astonishing attitude and one which could easily rebound upon us. There must be a possibility, if we allow these substances to be exported, that we shall find the wretched things coming back as residues in food that is imported into the Community.
The British Agrochemicals Association and the NFU speak of wanting further derogations. The BAA speaks of:
few organochlorines and organomercury products being in use here
and says that they are mainly used for cereal seed. It makes a point about a substance called calomel, which is useful against club root in brassicas. On all these matters we have to be guided by experts. I hope that the Government will veer on the side of safety. I hope that derogations will not be given simply because they might be helpful in the long term, because that attitude is likely to cause us trouble eventually.
The third point to which the Select Committee referred concerned the omission from the list in R/2026/76 of permitted substances which are widely used outside Europe. I welcome what the Minister said to the effect that these lists must be kept up to date. I am sure that that is the right attitude. The BAA has rightly said that it would be bureaucratic nonsense to say that certain substances should be left out of the list because they can always be introduced later.
The fourth matter to which the Select Committee referred was the need for a right of appeal where member States individually withdrew the E-mark from a product. I am glad to hear that the Government recognise that case. I will not go into the arguments since the Government are seized of them. Unless there is a right of appeal I can envisage some States within the Community using this loophole to trump up a case on purely spurious grounds for the purpose of protecting their own agrochemical industries.

I turn now to the fifth matter to which the Select Committee referred. We have a conflict here with regard to how much confidential information ought to be given to the various national authorities or Community authorities for the purpose of acquiring an E-mark. The National Union of Agricultural and Allied Workers says that the
fullest possible scientific documentation should be submitted".
But, surely, in this case what is needed is that no more should be supplied than is necessary. I believe that our agrochemical industry has a great advantage and lead in European terms, and, while suppliers should be made to give as much information as is necessary to protect human welfare and the environment, I hope that they will not be made to give more than necessary, because that would be a commercial absurdity. I am glad to know that the Minister accepts that point, too.
The Select Committee asked us to consider also the question of responsibility for collecting and disposing of empty containers. This was the subject of a proposal by the National Union of Agricultural and Allied Workers, and I welcome the point which it made. This is a serious problem. On my own farm we have the greatest difficulty in knowing how to deal with these containers. In fact, they are all locked in one room and are kept there, but the pile of tins becomes bigger and bigger every year and one wonders what on earth to do with them.
The union has proposed that collection should be the responsibility of suppliers, but I do not believe that to be practical. I believe that the responsibility has to lie with the users, because suppliers come and go and it is difficult to pin a certain tin or container down to one supplier. It is far better to make the buyer, the farmer, responsible in some way. But over the years we shall have to give a good deal more thought to how to deal with these things.
The Minister pointed out that Document R/2203/76 covers a matter which is the responsibility of the Department of Employment. I, too, welcome the proposed directive on dangerous substances. In particular, it proposes the control of new substances, and that must be right. Mankind suffers from the effects of some


substances which are in common use today but which, if.: here had been an arrangement of this sort years ago, would never have been allowed such wide use as we now find.
Over the years—I take this one example—I have been extremely interested in the use of a group of chemicals, the polychlorinated byphenyls and the polybrominated biphenyls, which have caused serious trouble in the United States as a result of getting mixed up wrongly with feeding stuffs and creating major problems for both cattle and human beings. It was the polychlorinated biphenyls which caused such a furore in the State of New York and over the past two years, I believe, caused a ban on all fish being taken from the Hudson River in New York. I can only say that it was a sad day when these chemicals came into everyday use.
I refer now to what can only be called a piece of utter bureaucratic nonsense. It has been brought to our attention by the National Farmers Union. I refer to Document R/89/75, Article 5, with regard to packaging. In paragraph (a) of Article 5 we read:
The packagings must be so constructed and sealed that their contents cannot escape.
In paragraph (c) we are told that
packages and closures must be sufficiently strong and solid throughout to ensure that they cannot come apart.
If we had packaging of this quality, it would be totally academic what was inside it, because it would be impossible to open it even with a tin-opener. That sort of drafting needs attention.
We welcome these proposals. They help to protect the environment for human, animal and plant life and give great opportunities to the British agrochemical industry. The explanatory memorandum to Document 2026 says:
The E-mark system could be expected to improve export opportunities for the United Kingdom manufacturers of pesticides.
That is an example, if one is needed, of how helpful the Community can be to British interests. Generally, these proposals are of great assistance to us, giving huge opportunities to our agrochemical industry, which is much more advanced than most, through this "seal of good housekeeping" to expand its business.
Those hon. Members who attend EEC debates to make the same speeches as they have been making for four or five years are almost totally absent tonight. The right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr Powell) is the only familiar face. I wonder where all the others are.

Mr. W. E. Garrett: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will include me in that list.

Mr. Jopling: No, because the hon. Gentleman is not one of those who use these occasions regularly to pour scorn and damnation on the Community. His speeches are much more objective. I paid him a compliment by not including him.
These are helpful and constructive proposals. I hope that they will soon be put into effect. Some amendments are needed, and I hope that the Minister will do his best to effect them.

10.38 p.m.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: I hope not to disappoint the hon. Member for Westmorland (Mr. Jopling) too much when I disclose that I shall reserve for other occasions what is now a work of supererogation—pouring scorn on the Community. One feels sorry for it these days rather than angry. I wish simply to raise a technical, though not unimportant, legal point. It is the implementation of these proposed directives under the law of the United Kingdom.
Para. 5 of the explanatory memorandum to Document R/2026 says:
The E-mark could be developed within the scope of the two voluntary schemes and no United Kingdom legislation, either principal or subordinate, would be required.
At first sight, that is surprising. Although through those voluntary schemes we may be complying with the requirements of the proposed directive, that fact in itself would not mean that we were complying with Community law unless the directive were embodied in our law—or, at any rate, so it appears at first sight.
Similarly, the explanatory memorandum to Document R/2027 says:
The controls equivalent to those envisaged are already secured administratively through the PSPS",
and it only adds:
If any supplementary provision proved necessary that could be done by regulations under the 1974 Act.


Again, it seems that whether or not we are complying with the controls required by the new Community law we should have to embody those requirements in our law in order to meet the new directives that will eventually emerge.
Finally, my third example relates to Document R/2203. Paragraph 9 of the explanatory memorandum says:
There are existing UK statutory requirements for the notification and clearance",
although the pesticides are cleared under the non-statutory scheme. That paragraph represents what I would have supposed would be the intended situation when these directives are in force.
Perhaps, therefore, the Minister will clear up the legal position, for I would have thought that, while we would of course continue to maintain these schemes, there was an obligation upon us to provide them with a legal framework and background. That is the essence of the law of the Community whether one likes it or not.
Paragraph 9 of R/2203 represents what I would have thought ought to be the corresponding situation under the other two regulations when they arc eventually in force.

10.41 p.m.

Mrs. Joyce Butler: I wish to say only a few words on Document R/89. I am very grateful to my hon. Friend the Minister for his reference to the part I played in the passage of the Farm and Garden Chemicals Act. On the same day as that Bill got through all its stages in the House of Commons a Protection of Birds Bill was successful, and I remarked then that it was a great day for the birds. The Farm and Garden Chemicals Act was in large measure inspired by the public concern about the widespread deaths of birds and other wild life due to eating poisoned seed dressings. That reminds us of the importance of the directives we are discussing.
As my hon. Friend said, I was very disappointed that it was not possible in the Farm and Garden Chemicals Act to find a warning mark or symbol or colour to denote the toxicity of certain chemicals, because of the discussions that were then proceeding internationally. I there-

fore greatly welcome the fact that we are now being directed to introduce warning symbols.
Another factor which has supervened since the Farm and Garden Chemicals Act came into being is the great development of home gardening and allotmenteering—the amateur production of food. This has increased considerably, especially in the past two or three years. Although farmers may be well aware of the dangers of toxic pesticides and chemicals, many gardeners coming new to growing their own crops may not be so well aware. It is therefore important for there to be a symbol that they can easily recognise. It is particularly important because there are great dangers if pesticides and other chemicals are wrongly used that they will leave in food residues that can be very dangerous.
Therefore, at this time it is more important than ever that we should be adding to the armoury we already have in own own legislation this kind of symbol, which is easily recognised by people coming new to the use of chemicals. I am therefore very glad that this is to be done, although I share my hon. Friend's concern that we were not able to devise these symbols ourselves and perhaps get something rather more appropriate. If I am right in thinking that the symbols will include a death's head and crossbones to indicate toxicity, that is obviously clear and easy to understand. However, I am not sure that a St. Andrew's Cross will convey to the public the potential harmful effects of a chemical or its irritant capacity.
The symbols may leave much to be desired, but they will be valuable additions. I hope that when we implement these parts of the directive we shall give them wide publicity. If the public do not know about the symbols, they will be valueless. I doubt whether more than a few hundred people outside the Chamber have any idea what the symbols mean. There will have to be a lot of education if the symbols are to be as effective as they should be. I welcome the directives generally and these parts of R/89 in particular.

10.46 p.m.

Mr. Peter Mills: I declare my interests as a farmer who uses chemicals and as a member of the Select Committee on European Legislation.


We are discussing important matters. I welcome the constructive speeches that we have heard. They have been in contrast to speeches on other EEC matters.
I wonder whether the House realises the tremendous growth in the use of chemicals and pesticides in agriculture. When I started in farming some years ago we used simple mixtures of copper sulphate and sulphur itself. I am surprised that we managed with so few pesticides and chemicals.
My hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland (Mr. Jopling) was right to draw attention to the cost per acre and the cost of treatment of animals in the use of chemicals and pesticides, but without them we could not get the yields that we now achieve from our cereals and we could not get the weed control, the live-weight gains in cattle, or the milk that we get now.
Some people criticise some of our chemical and pharmaceutical companies, but I pay tribute to them. They have made a large contribution to agricultural production and to the well-being of human beings and animals. Anyone who knows about the suffering of animals affected by warble fly must be thankful that there are modern pesticides to deal with the problem.
I am a little concerned about the need to introduce the directives. I appreciate the need for harmonisation, but we have well-worn paths in these matters. The brief that has been circulated to hon. Members shows that the pesticides safety protection scheme is a well-trodden path. The Ministry and the industry are to be congratulated on their co-operation. There are firm paths to be followed before any pesticide can be used. First there is controlled clearance, followed by limited clearance, provisional commercial clearance and finally commercial clearance itself. Anyone with doubt about the matter has only to read this document to appreciate the care that is taken in this country over these matters. I hope that the Community will come up to our standard. I do not think that it always does so. I welcome the documents, but I am slightly concerned about their effect on us when our standards are of the highest.
I wish to make two points about the packaging and labelling of pesticides. It

is not good enough simply to put "Poison" or a cross on the label. Many children cannot read "Poison". I believe that certain chemicals should be given obnoxious smells. A well-known weed killer, which I had better not mention by name, looks very much like Coca-Cola. It is very tempting to small children. Certain chemicals should be given an obnoxious smell so that as soon as the container is opened people can tell that they are highly dangerous.
Danger lies in the kind farmer or kind workman who says "I will let you have a small amount of this liquid for your garden or allotment". How we can protect youngsters and gardeners and other people from such kindness I do not know. It is not easy for a farmer to refuse when somebody says "I want to clear some weeds in my garden. Give me a bit of that stuff in this old lemonade bottle."
I wish to bring some of my fears to the Minister's attention. The labelling and packaging changes may present problems because new symbols are not easily recognised. If we are to have such changes and new symbols. I hope that the manufacturers and the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food will conduct a campaign to ensure that farmers and all the others concerned know about them.
Warnings about the dangers of the contents of packages or containers must be in our own language so that farmers and workers understand them. As we import many chemicals from other Community countries, it is important that people should be able to understand what is written: otherwise there may be more trouble.
I hope that the Minister will answer the five or six points we raised in the Select Committee, starting with discrepances and the need for derogations. I do not think that he dealt with them. I am sure that the House, and certainly the Select Committee, would like to have clear answers from him on paragraphs (a), (b) (c), (d), (e) and (f). That is the sole reason why the Committee recommended to the House that we should discuss these matters. It is not much use the Minister coming to the Dispatch Box if he does not give us clear answers. I am asking him to clarify these points, if not tonight, then in writing.

10.55 p.m.

Mr. Frank Hooley: Ever since the classic polemic "Silent Spring" against the use of chemical warfare in agriculture there has been a great deal of controversy about particular techniques. If I understand these documents correctly, they are concerned strictly with packaging and labelling and not necessarily with the actual techniques of the application of pesticides in agriculture.
I wish only to suggest that this is a matter of rather wider concern than simply the EEC. I want to inquire whether the Food and Agricultural Organisation of the United Nations, or even the World Health Organisation, has devised any rules, conventions, or suggestions on international symbols or techniques that would be recognised internationally to guard against the misuse or misapplication of very dangerous substances.
Pesticides are clearly exported not only across national barriers within the EEC but well outside the EEC. There is also the question of the use of these substances within developing countries. Developing countries may construe symbols, in accordance with their own cultural background and habit, far differently from meanings that might be immediately self-evident or self-indicatory within Western Europe. If we are to adopt any kind of international symbols on pesticides, they should be genuinely international and not applicable or recognisable merely within Western Europe.
If we are proceeding to a fairly universally recognisable system, I would have hoped that either the United Kingdom or the EEC Commission itself would go to the FAO, or the appropriate body within the FAO, and said "We have a system of marking or identification of pesticides. Can we not have genuine, widespread international discussions about this to see whether the symbols that we are proposing and the techniques for packaging and identification are suitable and are not likely to cause misunderstanding in countries in East Africa, West Africa, Latin America or where-ever else the powerful agricultural business sends its highly toxic products?"
Even if taking the matter to the FAO was going beyond what was required, surely the EEC, through the Lomé Convention and the Council of the ACP coun-

tries, has its own link with the developing countries. Surely consultations could have been carried out with the Lomé countries or the ACP Council about the marking and marketing of pesticides in order to obtain their views as to the best system of packaging, safeguards and symbolism to protect their people as well as ours.
As the hon. Member for Westmorland (Mr. Jopling) rightly said, if we export these substances in too casual or lighthearted a fashion and they are applied incompetently or recklessly, they might well penetrate into the food that comes back to us, or comes into international trade in one way or another, and so cause damage to us. Indeed, we do not want damage caused to anybody.
This argument goes much wider than just the EEC. It is proper these matters should be discussed within the EEC, but I should like to see these matters dealt with on an international basis. I should like to see them being discussed within FAO, WHO and other international bodies so that we may have a system of widespread application and not just confined to Western Europe.

11.0 p.m.

Mr. Michael Grylls: The hon. Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Mr. Hooley) spoke of expanding the area of symbols outside the Community. I agree with him and I am sure that is right. It will be useful at the outset to obtain agreement among the Nine on a common form of labelling and packaging.
I must declare an interest in the chemical industry. I do not want to talk particularly about labelling and packaging, but I wish to say a few words on the notification scheme.
This has been a controversial matter within the chemical industry generally in Western Europe within the EEC. Most people agree that it is right that new chemicals should be notified to the regulatory authorities—in this country the HSE. It is right that there should be tests of new products and that the results should be passed on to the authorities. But it should be made clear in carrying out these tests that the responsibility lies primarily with the manufacturer. That is where the buck should stop. This is what health and


safety at work really mean. If anything goes wrong with the product, it is the manufacturer who gets into trouble.
In regard to the notification of new substances, the regulatory authorities should have the job of ensuring that the tests carried out have been adequate and that monitoring procedures have taken place. However, we do not wish to establish a whole new bureaucracy and expensive testing techniques. The people who work in laboratories are very rare birds and there is a shortage of such staff in the developed world. Therefore, this could be an expensive operation.
The regulatory authorities have an important job to do in ensuring that conditions laid down for new products within the tests have been observed and that the conditions conform to the Health and Safety at Work Etc. Act. The public are concerned to see that controls and extra bureaucratic and testing processes are not on such a scale as to bring all innovation to a stop. That would be a disaster for Britain.
We may have many problems in this country, but on the whole we have been highly successful in innovatory procedures and in creating new chemical substances. Indeed, the chemical industry in the United Kingdom has been one of the great success stories, although there have been problem areas and we must not rest on our laurels but try to move still further ahead.
We all know that foodstuffs are controlled by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and medicines by the Committee on the Safety of Medicines, but there are ether chemicals that lie outside those two spheres that are dealt with in controlled conditions. They are not usually bandied round, I am referring to the ordinary chemicals used in factory plants under controlled conditions by people with a great deal of experience in handling chemicals.
There is a good deal of public concern about the frontiers of knowledge and the possibilities of ghastly accidents and incidents. We must try to temper that worry with practicality. Our former colleague, Mr. Christopher Tugendhat, the Commissioner in Brussels, spoke about these matters recently at the European Parliament. He said:
We entirely agree that these tests are not cheap and that a balance must be struck

between the necessity for tests on the one hand and the necessity not to increase the cost of production, and thus the cost to the consumer, on the other.
Mr. Tugendhat was making the point succinctly that we must try to achieve a balance. I am sure that we arc all concerned that we do not sit on innovation.
Research is very costly and there is the question of confidentiality. There is concern that if too much data is thrown around in public, the view will be taken that it is not worth while going ahead with research. Whether we consider those in agriculture or those who have a disease, there is so much to be gained by research. This country has led the way in research and has done extraordinarily well. I believe that about 500 new chemicals are produced every year in Britain.
My hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland (Mr. Jopling) referred to fireproof clothing and the danger of PBB, but we must put in the scales on the other side how many children's lives, for example, may have been saved by fire-proof clothing over the years. The Michigan disaster two or three years ago was a catastrophe, but it was not anything to do with the testing of a chemical. It arose because a thoroughly inefficent chemical company failed to label its product properly and it went into animal feeding stuffs.
We must put into the balance the advantages to be gained from PVC, polio vaccine or PBB fire-proof clothing. The huge advantages given to the public throughout the world by such products greatly outweigh any possible hazards. In the Michigan disaster there was a ghastly hazard and it is important to discover how it arose, but I do not think that it came about from testing.

Mr. Nigel Spearing: Does the hon. Gentleman agree, especially bearing in mind what we have heard from the hon. Member for Devon, West (Mr. Mills), that it may well be that the time is coming when some form of equilibrium in the pesticides-agriculture equation may have been reached, and that in future it may be that research will not be so important as it has been in the past 25 years?

Mr. Grylls: I am not sure that I am a fit person to give an answer to that question. It is very much a matter of


opinion. It is a highly technical subject whether we shall reach out into wider frontiers in the next 25 years than in the past 25 years. Maybe we shall and maybe we shall not. However, I take the hon. Gentleman's point. In 1977 there is greater public awareness of these matters. To that extent we are right to be talking about them tonight. There is no party division in these matters and we must achieve a proper balance.
Will the Minister give an assurance tonight that the testing of new products under the notification scheme will be relative to the risk and that the unnecessary and costly testing of every chemical will be avoided? Will it be what Mr. Tugendhat spoke of at the European Parliament, merely aimed at the chemicals that are the most dangerous, or potentially hazardous? It would be helpful if the Minister were to give an indication. I understand that he may not be able to do so tonight, but perhaps he will be able to let us know by letter. Many are worried about innovation being stifled.
Many mistakes have occurred through bad labelling. I hope that the proposals regarding labelling will be proceeded with quickly. As to the notification scheme—I came in half way through the Minister's speech, and I apologise, but I heard him use the word "caution"—I hope that the Government will proceed with caution on the details and will have in mind the national interest. We must continue to lead the world in innovation. We have an excellent record. We must not slip back. I give the rest of the directive a general blessing. However, I hope that the Government will carefully watch the notification part.

11.11 p.m.

Mr. W. E. Garrett: I was interested in the remarks of the hon. Member for Devon, West (Mr. Mills). I am reassured by the Minister's statement that there are to be further consultations and assurances on this highly intricate matter.
We are talking not only about thousands of people employed in the chemical industry, but about thousands of people who apply chemicals. It is therefore important to get our objectives right.
I share with the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) a certain degree of scepticism about any EEC document. Many hon. Members are not sure whether our standards will be applied within the EEC. There is a great deal of concern in particular in the agriculture industry. Our standards—I am not being a little Englander—tend to be much higher than those of the people who will apply these directives in other EEC countries. Therefore, the Minister must explain these matters not only to the manufacturers of chemicals and the people who package them, but to the users.
We must exert more pressure than we have hitherto to ensure that the standards will be applied not only to this country but to other EEC countries. If they are not to be applied within the EEC generally, some Minister at some time must come back and tell us why. If the standards are not being applied, we should have the right to say that we are not having them, that we are ignoring them, or that we shall apply our own. My experience is that our standards are much higher than any standards hitherto applied within the EEC.
This is a confused situation. It is regrettable that this important documentation should have had so little discussion. Sooner or later this matter will emerge again. Thousands of jobs, millions of pounds of capital investment and millions of pounds of return on that capital investment are involved. Yet tonight we are just skirmishing round the issue.
I hope that the Minister recognises that hon. Members who are here are concerned about the outcome of the documentation that has been presented tonight.

11.15 p.m.

Mr. Giles Shaw: I shall not detain the Minister for long because we are all interested in his reply. I agree with the hon. Member for Wallsend (Mr. Garrett) that this is a mightily important series of documents. It reflects upon an important industry. We are right to express concern about the way in which pesticides have been developed and the way in which labelling has lacked information for consumers. We welcome the documents as a step in the direction of tackling an area of danger.
Many comments will be made on Document R/2027. Under paragraph 7 I note that the interested organisations do not include any conservation bodies. Would it not be wise for the Department to include them? The debate was generated by the anxieties expressed by conservation organisations and by the natural requirements of agriculture.
I emphasise the argument of my hon. Friend the Member for Devon, West (Mr. Mills) about secondary containers. It is all very well to mark the major containers purchased by professionals such as farmers. The hon. Member for Wood Green (Mrs. Butler), was right to criticise the symbols. They should be more dramatic. The real problem concerns secondary containers. Empty containers should not be left to the individual purchasers, even if they are farmers. The local authority must have the responsibility of ensuring their safe removal once they are empty but still dangerous. It would not be sensible for large piles of toxic drums to be left in outhouses for a long time.
I ask the Minister for a clarification of Article 7 of Document R/2027. This allows States to provide for the use for certain periods of those substances listed in the annexe when faced with a threat to crop production which cannot be contained by other means. Does that mean that substances such as aldrin, endrin and dieldrin, which have a terminal date of December 1979, could be used? Does it mean that they could be used after that date for the 60-day period? If so, surely there is a conflict between that use of these chemicals, which are known to have a serious effect upon wild life and have a long breakdown period, and conservation. I thought that the document was designed to tackle the danger to wild life.
The issue that we are discussing is of the greatest importance bearing in mind the disaster in Italy about 12 months ago. We recognise that the agriculture chemical industry is of prime importance, but we are equally concerned with the safe use of dangerous products. We welcome the documents. We hope that they have a speedy passage to ensure a reduction in accidents due to the mis-use of chemicals.

11.19 p.m.

Mr. Strang: This debate has arisen out of the recommendations of the Scrutiny Committee. Like some other

hon. Members. I should like to pay tribute again to the Committee's work. As the hon. Member for Devon, West (Mr. Mills), among others, is aware, it is quite a heavy burden to have to go through all these matters, notwithstanding that the Ministry of Agriculture tries as a rule to provide very competent and lucid memoranda. I acknowledge the work done by those hon. Members concerned.
Before turning to the points that have been raised, perhaps I should preface my remarks with a general observation on timing. The hon. Member for Westmorland (Mr. Jopling) said that Ministers may have discussed these matters. I should like, therefore, to take the opportunity to point out that we are having this debate at a fairly early stage in the evolution of these proposals, which of course one expects to become eventually fully fledged directives, and, indeed, there will be continuing discussions at official level for some time, I envisage, before they come to Ministers in a Community context. I therefore take this opportunity at the outset to assure my hon. Friend the Member for Wallsend (Mr. Garrett) that we shall continue to consult the industry very fully.
What the hon. Member for Pudsey (Mr. Shaw) said about consulting conservation bodies was interesting. I think that he would agree that in general we tend to look at these issues from the point of view of human welfare and to some extent animal welfare. However, I shall look at the hon. Member's suggestion. My experience is that if conservation organisations such as Friends of the Earth feel that they ought to be consulted—I note from the hon. Member's reaction that he obviously does not have in mind Friends of the Earth. However, if those bodies concerned with conservation and pollution that he would like us to consult want to be consulted, perhaps the hon. Member will let me have their names, and we shall consider doing so.
The hon. Member for Westmorland mentioned the applicability of Document R /89/75 to plant pesticides. There is no intention in any of the three draft directives to include veterinary products such as warble fly treatments. I am not sure whether the hon. Member has had the opportunity to read the actual article of


the appropriate directive, but it constantly refers to plants or weeds in virtually every one of the six respects listed in Article 2, although it is true that the definition in R/89/75 is intended to be wider than the other two directives and is intended to include rodenticides.

Mr. Jopling: Article 6, however, particularly refers to substances which
give protection against vermin or animal or insect pests not classed as plant pests".
That would imply that they would be animal pests.

Mr. Strang: Perhaps I should have made this general point earlier. These directives are at a very early stage. It is certainly our view that there are important drafting amendments to be made, leaving aside the issues of substance on which there is agreement to a substantial extent among a number of member States. However, I had better move on fairly quickly because there is not much time left to cover the points raised.
I shall work fairly quickly through the points raised by the Scrutiny Committee —(a) to (f). I covered them fairly well in my opening speech, although perhaps I could have addressed them more pointedly for the benefit of those hon. Members who have not been following these matters in detail in recent months. To some extent I covered the first two points when I acknowleged that there would be drafting amendments to the draft directives.
Taking up the point raised by the hon. Member for Westmorland about the manufacture of products destined for third countries, I emphasise that we are here talking about draft directives. The United Kingdom regulations in this area apply to the marketing and use of products in member States. We are legislating on a Community basis and the directives apply to marketing of products in the Community. They do not apply to marketing outside the Community. This applies particularly to labelling and to the E-mark. We naturally have to obey the laws in third countries.
On a technical point, there are situations when it is reasonable that a product that is not manufactured for use in the Community should be manufactured

for use outside it. It would not make sense to apply the regulations across the board.
Some substances have been omitted according to sub-paragraph (c). This is a matter we are continuing to pursue. I made direct reference to the need for an appeal. We are in favour of it. Confidentiality, dealt with in sub-paragraph (e), raises a difficult point. I used the word "caution", as the hon. Member for Surrey, North-West (Mr. Grylls) acknowledged.
Perhaps it is easier for Tory Members to decide what the Government's stance should be. We do not wish to damage the export prospects of major international companies based in the United Kingdom. At the same time, the responsibilities of Government in this area—I am talking in terms of open government and greater disclosure of information by companies generally—mean that we wish to make sure that we do what is right on behalf of the community as a whole as opposed to what may be right for a particular company. We have had to move cautiously here and I do not think that there is much between us.
I come to the point raised by the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell). If I understood it, it concerned the point that if these draft directives are agreed, we have made it clear that we intend to implement through what is sometimes described as the voluntary scheme—more frequently known as the flexible scheme—rather than through the enactment of legislation. As I understand it, the position is that it is not necessary to enact any legislation or make any regulations to meet Community requirements. It is quite acceptable to implement these Community directives through the voluntary agreement system with the interests concerned in this country. If he would like me to do so, I shall write to the right hon. Member, drawing his attention to the legal basis, which I think will be in the Treaty of Rome, which enables us to do this. I shall write to the right hon. Gentleman—

It being one and a half hours after the commencement of proceedings on the motion, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER put the

Question, pursuant to Standing Order No. 3 (Exempted Business).

Question agreed to.

Resolved,
That this House takes note of Commission Documents Nos. R/39/75, R/1643/75, R/ 2026/76, R/2027/76 and R/2203/76 on Pesticides, Plant Protection and Packaging and Labelling.

BOMBARDIER HEINZ PISAREK

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Snape.]

11.30 p.m.

Mr. David Hunt: I want to raise on the Adjournment the subject of compensation for the death of Bombardier Pisarek in Northern Ireland. In doing so I want to stress that this case is one of a number of which certainly I am aware and which give rise to a good deal of public concern about the general issue of compensation for Servicemen in Northern Ireland.
It is easy to see the subject in emotive terms, but tonight I am hoping merely to relate the facts of the case and to give as much time as possible to the Minister to give what I hope will be a sympathetic response to my case.
Mrs. Pisarek, my constituent, lives in Hassall, Wirral, on Merseyside. Her husband, Bombardier Heinz Pisarek, was murdered by the IRA in Northern Ireland at the age of 30, on 24th November 1973, whilst on active service. He left his widow Mrs. Pisarek, now aged 33, and two sons, Karl, born on 30th March 1966, and Dwyan, born on 3rd March 1969. At the time he was murdered Bombardier Pisarek had a promising career in front of him and was already earning a good and substantial salary, with additional benefits. Mrs. Pisarek has received no compensation and has been informed that it is not possible to make any offer of compensation to her arising out of her husband's death.
One of the most disturbing aspects of the case is that Mrs. Pisarek has been told that she is now better off as a result of her husband's death and that this is why no damages will be paid to her. She tells me that she was told by Army officials soon after the death of her husband

that she would receive between £8,000 and £15,000 compensation within 18 months.
Mrs. Pisarek is in receipt of a weekly war widow's pension of £17, together with an Army pension of £28. She received a gratuity of £2,000 from the Army, together with £500 compensation for the way in which her husband died. She also received the proceeds from a death policy, which I understand is not taken into account in assessing compensation. The way in which compensation is calculated, however, is for the benefits that she is now receiving to be capitalised on a forward projection basis, producing a considerable lump sum, which is then set against the compensation that she would otherwise have received.
Mrs. Pisarek, but for this calculation, would receive very substantial compensation for herself and her two boys. Her situation compares most unfavourably with the compensation that she would have received had her husband been killed during the course of his employment with any other employer. If her husband had been killed whilst working in a factory, such a massive deduction for pension would not have been made. It is clear that any family who have just lost their wage earner and breadwinner desperately need a lump sum by way of compensation, both as security for the future and to meet the very substantial bills which always accrue in such a situation. The shameful result of this case and a number of others that have appeared in the Press is that persons working in the service of the Crown cannot do their work without worrying about the future for their families if they are killed.
This is a tragic case. Mrs. Pisarek has been fighting for compensation for nearly four years. Her husband served his Queen and country proudly and with honour. He was in Northern Ireland for the second time, after having been wounded on the first occasion.
I quote from a letter from my constituent, which emphasises the effect of the death of her husband. She said:
All of a sudden my life was shattered. I am a young widow with two young children. I expected help. I found that no one gave a damn about me or my family. No one seemed to want to know. I could not even get a house from the council of the city where I was born and bred. I was told I would receive a lot of compensation, but after three


and a half years I was told I was better off without my husband.
This is a case which troubles me considerably. I believe it to be a scandal that someone in Mrs. Pisarek's position should have been treated so badly. The case raises a number of disturbing issues. It is now over three and a half years since Mrs. Pisarek's husband died on active service, and she still has no compensation. No words of mine in this short debate could do justice to the tragedy with which this family have been faced.
I have got to know the family over the time they have been consulting me, and I know that they have done their best to overcome all the serious financial difficulties with which they have been confronted. They have been using what few savings they have in order to continue to be able to make ends meet. It is with great regret that I have to raise the matter tonight, but I felt it right to bring to the attention of the House a specific case of this nature in view of the many reports which have appeared in the Press of similar cases, though perhaps without the detailed factual content which I am able to give of Mrs. Pisarek's position. There was a good deal of publicity given to the case of a widow in Southampton, but I shall not go into that now because I recognise that the Minister knows a great deal about that and other cases.
It may well be the result of misunderstandings that there is so much discontent over the question of compensation for widows of Service men killed in Northern Ireland, and in the hope of removing those misunderstandings I eagerly await the hon. Gentleman's response to this short debate. If we cannot create a state of affairs in which members of our forces serving in Northern Ireland can go about their duties without worrying about what will happen to their familities if they are killed or seriously wounded, we are not doing our duty.
As a solicitor, I have had a great deal of experience in civil compensation cases. I know that in accident cases in factories one has to prove negligence on the part of the employer, but that is not difficult to do nowadays, and the lump sums which are paid by way of compensation serve to highlight by their size the serious nature of the deficiencies of the compensation arrangements for widows such as my constituent and others.

Surely, this is something of which we should all be ashamed and about which action ought swiftly to be taken. No one can really compensate this family for the loss they have suffered, but at least we should try.

11.40 p.m.

The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. J. D. Concannon): The first and real tragedy in this case is that Bombardier Heinz Pisarek had to die at all, at the appallingly early age of 30, serving his country and defending the citizens of Northern Ireland against terrorism.
Immediately after her husband's death Mrs. Pisarek lodged a claim for compensation, through her solicitors, and this debate gives me an opportunity to speak on the operation both of the Criminal Injuries to Persons (Compensation) Act (Northern Ireland) 1968 under which the claim was lodged and of the new Criminal Injuries (Compensation) Order, a draft of which was approved by this House on 1st July.
We have been debating this subject for the best part of this Session, and it has caused some concern in Northern Ireland since the Act which was passed by Stormont came into effect in 1968. We have also had the Waddell Report, and the order passed by the House on 1st July.
There is a great deal of misunderstanding of the workings of the order. Any official who told Mrs. Pisarek that she would be getting between £8,000 and £15,000 was not doing her a great service if he did not explain the nature of the calculations of compensation awards. Someone from the Ministry of Defence owes the hon. Member for Wirral (Mr. Hunt) a letter on this score. If things were said to Mrs. Pisarek as he described, I am alarmed to think that that may be happening to other widows of Army personnel.
This is a difficult job—for me as much as anyone. I am an ex-Regular soldier myself and have served in some hot spots around the world. This is one of my jobs in Northern Ireland that I look on with particular reverence.
The 1968 Act provides that compensation is payable to the dependants of the deceased victims of crimes of violence for their pecuniary loss. Pecuniary loss is assessed in the first instance by reference to the family's dependency, that is


to say, the share which it had of the victim's income after allowing for tax and similar commitments and for his own personal expenditure. The assessment can take account both of the record of past earnings and of the prospect of future earnings on promotion. Annual loss can be converted to a capitalised lump sum by the use of a multiplier reflecting the victim's age. This process is well established in the courts in relation to common law actions and indeed in relation to claims for criminal injuries compensation, which in Northern Ireland are all at present ultimately determined in court.
The 1968 Act then provides that deductions are to be made from the estimated gross pecuniary loss to take account of any State or occupational pensions and benefits payable to the dependants whatever the victim's employment whether he is working in a factory or in the security forces, or anywhere else. The effect is to ensure that losses are not recouped twice over by compensation as well as by pensions. A capitalised value is calculated for pensions in the same way as for pecuniary loss, again following the precedents of the courts, and the difference between the two amounts represents the net compensation payable.
Final details of the relevant elements of Mrs. Pisarek's claim were received from her solicitors in June 1976. We assessed the capital values of her dependency and of I her pensions and other benefits over a period of years. Since in this way her benefits exceeded her loss by almost £8,000 we were obliged in September 1976 to tell her solicitors that we could make no offer of compensation. There is no provision in the Act for ex gratin or consolatory payments.
I have different figures for Mrs. Pisarek's sums of money from the £28 and £17 that the hon. Gentleman gave. The figures that I have from the Army Pay Office and the DHSS are £40.62 and £29.60, giving a total of £70.22 a week, on top of the lump sum. I did not want to say that, but it was necessary to clear up the discrepancy between the hon. Gentleman's figures and mine.
At this stage it was open to Mrs. Pisarek's advisers either to suggest some alternative assessment or to have the claim determined by the court, which

would, as I have said, have followed the same proces sof assessment. They did neither and, indeed, asked that the case should not be put to the court at the end of 1976. I say that without implying any criticism. It may be that they have been looking for further evidence of loss or were awaiting our proposals for the new order.
The new order—

Mr. David Hunt: Before the Minister moves on to the new order, may I put to him one point which I can do so appropriately as a solicitor specialising in civil compensation work? Has he considered the points I was making about the comparison between the widow of someone killed at work and the widow of someone killed in the active service of the Crown? If someone is killed at work, the pension payments or social security payments are not taken into account on a forward projection basis. What is the logic of having one system for civil compensation which affords very large lump sums to the widows and a completely different system for the widows of those killed in the active service of the Crown?

Mr. Concannon: We have been discussing this matter since January of this year. We had two long sittings in Committee and spent the whole of Friday 1st July discussing the issue. There was a report in Ireland and there was little criticism of it. No one can recoup twice. We are compensating for pecuniary loss. Even in the cases the hon. Gentleman mentioned the works pension or the industrial pension is deducted from any sum awarded.
The new order, which I hope will come into operation in August, makes no change in the method of calculating compensation in such cases. It will still be based on the difference between pensions and gross pecuniary loss. It does, however, provide that if compensation is reduced by the deduction of pensions and other benefits the Secretary of State may make a discretionary payment to a widow to bring compensation up to what she and any children would have received without any deductions up to a maximum of £5,000 for herself and £500 for each child. Moreover, these discretionary payments will be able to be made not


only in cases arising under the new order but retrospectively in cases already determined under the 1968 Act.
If, therefore, we accept for the moment, subject to any submissions of new evidence and to the final decision of the court, that Mrs. Pisarek is not entitled to any compensation under the 1968 Act, I can say that on the face of it—there will obviously have to be a check —she would be given a discretionary payment of £6,000–£5,000 for herself and £1,000 for her two children—when the new order becomes law.
A formal decision cannot be made, however, until her basic claim is finally settled. This can be done in court in September, either on the basis of agreement between us, or by the court after a hearing.
Mrs. Pisarek's case is typical of several, particularly involving the widows of members of the security forces, where we recognise that the normal assessment of compensation, though quite defensible in terms of strict financial justice, can cause understandable distress by giving awards of little or no value. The new order, as I have said, has been specifically drafted to bring relief in such cases.
I hope that it will not be misunderstood in future as it has been misunderstood and misrepresented in the past.
This distressing case has given me the opportunity to give hope to those involved in cases where pensions have been deducted from the final sum. It is as a result of protests from hon. Members such as the hon. Member for Wirral that the new provision has been written into the order.

Mr. David Hunt: It would obviously assist my constituent and many others who are waiting on the Minister's words to know when he expects that the order is likely to come into effect. On the face of it, my constituent is entitled to £6,000 and it would greatly assist her to know when the order will come into operation.

Mr. Concannon: We can expect the hon. Gentleman's constituent to receive £6,000, but this will depend on her claim being settled by mutual arrangement or a decision of the court. The scheme will come into operation a fortnight after the passing of the order. I expect that it will be in effect by about the middle of August.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at eight minutes to Twelve o'clock.